SSCReader
1yr ago
It is a tricky one. But consider this, the fighter picked his tactic, which square he was going to move into before he attacked, which weapon he was going to use, etc. In social combat, that might translate into which avenue are you taking to persuade the king. Appeal to his honor? his empathy? his pride? Are you portraying yourself as his equal or his subject? Appealing to the time you saved his daughter from orcs?
And that's normally how I run it when I am GM, I won't necessarily require a full speech, but I will want to know what weapon you are using and where you are metaphorically planting your feet. However someone who struggles with social skills, may even struggle with identifying those options. and that can be a bit of a quandary.
Depending on the group, there definitely can be expectations that you roleplay your character when you speak which helps with the shared fantasy.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Absolutely, if I am deciding the BBEG's lair I might have a few weeks to think about what counter-measures he would take to ward off wandering bands of murder-hobos. On the other hand in universe he might well have had years or centuries. Eventually you just have to shrug and say good enough. or take advantage of knowing what the players or planning to ward against it, but do that too often and it starts to discourage players from planning. if it always fails might as well just kick down the front door and murder your way in room by room.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Yeah it's a continuum I guess. If you just reduce everything to dice rolls then it's a board game not a roleplaying game almost, but if you base it on actual performance, then you are basically doing improv with not much of the game part. You have to balance those (and every group and individuals preferred balance will probably be somewhat different).
SSCReader
1yr ago
You can't skip from "different versions belong in different universes" to "different versions in the same universe" as it suits your argument. Either Middle-earth is indeed different in every version, in which case Amazon do not get to call it Tolkien's work, or it's the same world in the different versions.
Ok, so what is your interpretation of Jackson's movies? Is it Lord of the Rings? Is it Tolkien's work? Marvel deal with it using multiverse within their overall meta universe (though whether their tv shows and movies are part of that comics metaverse seems to change, is the MCU Earth-616 or 199999 for example?)
Given we already have multiple versions of Lord of the Rings properties, how do you see those? That is what I am really trying to get at. Forget what the specific differences are, if Jackson's movies had been identical to the book except for the Arwen/Glorfindel change for example. Is it Lord of the Rings? Is it Tolkien or not?
Is your position that ANY change invalidates calling it Lord of the Rings or is your issue with specific changes?
Edit: I think you kind of answered this below actually.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Noticing that the Little Mermaid is black now happens entirely apart from the actual story of the Little Mermaid, and it comes off as the blatant coattail-riding it really is.
And if you knew that it wasn't coattail riding but that this specific actress was cast due to being the best at audition? Would that change your perception?
SSCReader
1yr ago
but we know she's not,
Careful with consensus building. You may heavily suspect she is not, but you don't (unless you have access to more information about the casting decisionmaker's internal state)absolutely know. Which you then admit in your next sentence in fact. The director's statement:
"After an extensive search, it was abundantly clear that Halle possesses that rare combination of spirit, heart, youth, innocence, and substance — plus a glorious singing voice — all intrinsic qualities necessary to play this iconic role,” Marshall said in a statement."
Now he might be a liar here. But your own statements contradict yourself. If you KNOW she's not the best choice, then it isn't POSSIBLE she is. You can heavily suspect, your priors might heavily point that way, but if you admit there is a possibility she was chosen because she was the best, then I don't think you can also state you KNOW she wasn't!
But anyway, that is all besides the point. We're operating in the hypothetical where you do know she was picked because she was the best. Given that, would that impact how you felt about it? Or would you still think they shouldn't pick a black actress even if she was the best in audition?
SSCReader
1yr ago
No, I'm quite comfortable saying that when you optimize for X you're going to get X, not Y.
That wasn't your claim however. Your claim was stronger. That in this case you KNOW she was not the best choice. Yet you also admitted it was possible she was. Your own words contradict themselves. You can indeed optimize for X and still get Y. Perhaps rarely, perhaps less so depending on the extent of your optimization.
I'm just suggesting to adjust your language to hedge a little more in line with the rules of the forum. If you don't actually know something (and you own words indicate you do not) then reduce the strength of your certainty.
For example, I think it is highly likely that pretty much every politician is corrupt, given my direct experience and the various set of incentives involved. But that doesn't mean every single specific politician is. And if I don't have specific evidence for any specific politician I should probably not claim I KNOW they are corrupt. Here at least.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Who is they? Did the director say that? The casting agent? Is this always their priority? Do they never have other priorities that are higher? Remember we should be as specific as possible and not refer to the amorphous "they" here. Making sweeping generalizations is explicitly in the things we are supposed to avoid doing, so as to avoid waging the culture war.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I'd argue your example, shows why fixing the demand is actually the only real solution. If there is demand for narcotics, someone will provide it. If there is demand for illegal low paid labor, someone will find a way to provide that too.
Enforcement cannot solve either problem. You have to fundamentally change the demand (or accept the demand as not that bad and legalize it, but we'll take that off the table for now).
No matter how many suppliers you arrest, there will be more. That applies to suppliers of illegal drugs or illegal workers. I would argue that the only effective solution to fix the demand problem. Going after cartels has notably entirely failed to fix the issue. Smugglers will always find a way. The War on Drugs has cost billions upon billions and I could still buy pretty much anything I want on street corners. The War on Drugs is a failure, a War on Illegal Immigration would fail just as hard.
The demand is why there is an issue at all. That is the thing that must be removed. The problem for drugs is that this basically cannot be done. I think you could do it for immigration, but it would involve heavily clamping down on businesses, particularly farms et al.
SSCReader
1yr ago
If no-one employs them, the incentive to come is much reduced. I think you have this entirely backwards. They only come because they can get work and have a better standard of living here. Fixing that is the only long term solution. Smugglers will always find a way, whether it is people or drugs as long as the demand exists.
Enforcement can certainly make it more difficult and reduce numbers. But if you really want none, then you have to stop the demand. Hiring an illegal worker is what attracts said illegal workers.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Absolutely, crying one's way to victory is not a legitimate strategy. It certainly shouldn't be effective.
Feelings trump facts. That is the reality of people in my experience. Whether it should be or not, emotional manipulation is a legitimate strategy. It's fundamentally one of the most basic strategies we have. Our kids learn it early. And they learn it because it works. Because adults do it to each other all the time. People are not rational in my experience. Emotional policy is just as valid as rational policy. Especially as most rational policy is influenced by emotion and feelings anyway, that's why we are so good at rationalizing our beliefs. So they appear to be factual but really are not.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I am not going to pretend people aren't doing what they're obviously doing. If your definition of charity demands I turn off my ability to recognize patterns I will not be charitable. Find a more reasonable definition.
Not my definition of charity. The rules of the forum, that say you should not generalize. If you make claims keep them specific. Again, I am not denying that you may be right, I am saying that saying you know (and then contradicting yourself) make it look like you are more interested in waging the culture war here than discussing it. Which is explicitly what we are not here to do.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I know Germany is a country. It is possible Germany is not a country. These are mutually exclusive statements. If I said "I believe Germany is a country. It is possible Germany is not a country" that is fine. If you know something, then it is not possible for the reverse to be true. Because if it is then you did not KNOW.
And I submit, that you do not know for a fact that Marshall picked her for that reason. You may heavily suspect it. Your prior may be very high. But you cannot, absent specific knowledge of that specific decision know.
If I cast a black woman in a show, even if it were because she was the best pick, I would be a fool not to market it thusly. It's guaranteed press. Is Marshall a dedicated progressive or a calculating PR man? We don't KNOW. Because if he were the second he would not say so.
So there we go, in this world there is a scenario in which she was picked on talent and marketed on race. And we would not be able to tell the difference.
SSCReader
1yr ago
The pragmatic problem with that, is that it gives the businesses an incentive to vote for and lobby politicians who will not then crack down on illegal immigrants.
If Farmers (an important lobby in rural Red heartlands) have an incentive to keep them, then Red politicians have the incentive to keep them. If you allow farmers to employ them, then the fed's will never sort them out. The Blues won't and neither will the Reds no matter who is in charge.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Those things decouple the winner of the argument from his correctness
In most of these situations, there is no "correctness". Should we treat a trans woman as a woman? It's a values question, there is no factual answer. So the best answer is the one that makes us feel best. Trust our intuitions. We have evolved a complex series of emotional responses to living in groups. We shouldn't ignore those non-rational signals. We developed them for a reason, because they allow us to work through social situations and influence our peers.
So yes, we should let our feelings of disgust and hate flow. They exist for a reason. And they are arguably at the heart of why we then hold the political opinions we do. Why should those be disregarded for rationality? If such a thing could even be attained, should it? Why tear down the Chesterton's fence?
SSCReader
1yr ago
It is possible Germany isn't a country.
Yes and if that was so, when I said "I know Germany is a country" I was wrong to claim so. I thought I knew but I was incorrect. and given that can be the case about Germany, for anything less certain in this environment , I should hedge. I am pretty sure Germany is a country. I am 99.9% sure Germany is a country.
Don't confuse knowledge for inductive conclusions.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Right, but if you give them incentives to work against your interests, it becomes harder to achieve your interests. Hence removing that incentive will make it easier to reach your goals. Whether you morally condemn farmers, pragmatically you should work towards it. A two-pronged strategy. The reason Republican politicians don't do that is that farmer's lobbies are locally powerful.
SSCReader
1yr ago
That's the only way out of the jungle.
There is no way out of the jungle. We are the jungle. And changing that would arguably turn us into something not human. If you have disgust at ym word view, you should influence people to feel the way you do. Facts do not change opinions. The facts that people choose to acknowledge is downstream of their feelings.
Our socially evolved emotions and herd instincts are absolutely vital, they should not be ignored. Science is a slightly different matter, but in social situations there is no rationally correct outcome.
SSCReader
1yr ago
why should anyone give you that deal?
Why do companies employ people who could switch to another company? Why do they sometimes compete with that other company by making better offers? Because good employees (or citizens in this case) bring value to the company/nation.
If I am a citizen of France currently, I still have to bear the responsibilities (paying taxes, following laws etc) even if I have the option to easily become a German citizen next week. Then I have to keep up my German responsibilities.
I'm not entirely onboard with it as I think national pride and the like does have a function. But it isn't entirely crazy. It's basically an extension of the Archipelago Scott wrote about. Freedom of movement as a way to pressure governments to be the best government. Democracy of the feet so to speak.
SSCReader
1yr ago
I think that is far too simplistic. After all cats can also hear dog whistles. Because having high frequency hearing was evolutionarily advantageous for them to hear small prey. Notably the small prey can also hear them.
Someone hearing a dog whistle can mean they are the dog, but they might also be the dog's prey. If something is being used as a way to say Jew without saying Jew, then it would behoove Jews themselves to develop the ability to tell the difference themselves to know when they are being targeted. And then in a political coalition, their allies.
Someone hearing a dog whistle, can therefore be a dog, a cat or a mouse. How they react is what gives you actual information. If they bound towards it tail wagging then they are probably a dog, if they flee for cover they are a mouse. If they hiss and wander off to piss on your carpet, they are a cat.
SSCReader
1yr ago
Most workers aren't under no compete clauses though, that is reserved mostly for white collar knowledge jobs. It's not worth it for Forever 21 to have a no compete clause for their retail workers. And even if they did how would they ever know? And no competes are also often not legal depending on location. Right now if I had a no-compete clause for a job in PA, I could move to California and mostly ignore it entirely as California generally does not recognize no-compete clauses.
SSCReader
1yr ago
If you have a shitty life, it's because someone fucked you. If nobody fucked you, personally, then their ancestors fucked your ancestors.
Note that if you switch their ancestors fucked your ancestors to "your ancestors fucked you through giving you shitty genes" then the argument still holds. If I want to prevent people having shitty lives it doesn't matter whether they have shitty lives because they were oppressed or because they have "bad" genetics or because their dad beat them or their uncle abused them.
My prediction is this. Even if HBD in the form you describe became a mainstream belief, roughly the same people who want distributive egalitarianism now would want it then. You are looking at their rationalizations not the cause. The cause is that they truly do not want people to have shitty lives. Lighting piles of money to try to help makes them feel better and those feelings will trump any facts. The arguments they make (as most people's are) are backwards rationalizations to justify how they feel. That's why they can switch the argument each time it is disproven and keep the conclusion, because the conclusion comes first. People are not rational, logical agents.
SSCReader
1yr ago
The rich people are rich because they have more money is also a solvable problem. You can kill them and take it. Notably that isn't something most people endorse now. Whether they are genetically superior or not (barring being Space Marines or something) they are still vulnerable to bullets as you point out. But they are vulnerable to bullets right now just the same.
Seems unlikely to make much of a difference.
SSCReader
1yr ago
A counter point would be that we are supposed to write as if everyone is reading and we WANT them to read and take part. Given the term in question it is likely some people reading are likely to be upset or offended by it. If it is necessary to be used specifically for the post in question that should probably take precedence, but if everyone knows what you mean using the censored version, then that is a consideration worth thinking about also.
People who do not believe in the use/mention distinction are still people that we want to read here because they are a subset of everyone.
That can come across a little cheaply however. If the players come up with a clever tactic should the villain have precited it by virtue of being so much smarter? So now you have to gauge how smart is that 25 INT wizard compared to the players. Which then brings us back to the first issue with trying to emulate how a super genius would think in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link