ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
2d ago
they'll probably get by without really understanding
Humans are not meant to read; we learn through doing a lot of the time. Most of their education will occur outside the university system because the university system is not meant to teach (which is something nobody will really teach you, and if you're one of those people who do learn this it'll also destroy your patience with it, and that's not something you can afford to lose at that stage of your life: this is why your early twenties should not be spent in education).
I honestly kinda wonder to what extent they get what proportion of their undergrads to really grok it within the four years, or if they still have plenty of clean-up to do in grad school.
Judging by the quality of the instruction I've received from the average university professor, not even the professors actually get it. The ones that do understand it tend not to be academic-types.
These kids have basically just taken ordinary differential equations!
No, what they've taken is a week of differential equations and three months of that being obfuscated by algebra for credential reasons.
doing homeschooling successfully would be much easier than it actually is, and it would be much more common
If the parent's smart enough to educate their kid correctly with homeschool, and the kid inherited enough of that intelligence to get the benefits of having an intelligent teacher, the parent is also more likely to understand the opportunity cost of leaving their 6-figure job to do it and that private school and tutors aren't that expensive (and you can fire them if they do it badly).
So it makes sense that most homeschoolers are going to be average parents (or maybe slightly below average if they're doing it for religious reasons), teaching average children, and getting average results.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
3d ago
'Elites' are more likely to be punished for imaginary crimes (like fucking 16 and 17-year-olds) than real ones.
To a point, they have qualified/sovereign immunity from prosecution when they commit the real crimes, that's why you have to get them hard on the public morals stuff.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
3d ago
meanwhile the amplified message is "don't ever lower your standards girlie, in fact, raise them. If you can't find what you're looking for its just proof that you're too good for this world. You owe nothing to men, and their concerns don't matter."
Of course, this is women sabotaging women.
When do we admit the current advice is insufficient?
We will admit it by means of, or coincident with, a concerted effort from women such that women's tears stop winning in the marketplace of ideas. Men can't do that alone; this is a problem women have to solve for women.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
4d ago
"Leftists don't want to emancipate women because they don't see the necessary connection between biology and womanhood!"
Leftist women don't want to emancipate women because they do see the necessary connection between gender and privilege brought on by scarcity.
Going all the way would remove that, and they have a pretty good thing going (this is why I see this kind of 'leftism' as a fundamentally conservative privilege-preserving movement at society's general expense).
The problem with freeing and protecting women from men is that you must also free and protect women from women. And until the women who want freedom understand the actual threat (and the women worthy of freedom do understand this; the propaganda about men being the real evil exists specifically to confuse these women about this issue, it's not actually intended for men) they'll make no progress in that area.
The more clear-headed I think just don't think that the actions needed to stop the boats, and the fight with the blob that it would require, are worth it.
This requires indigenous young men to go out and shoot the people on the boats. They'll stop coming once they know it's a death sentence.
Europe isn't capable of doing that; its old men, old women, and (to an extent) its young women are all in agreement that indigenous young men should be replaced for [whatever reason]. They'll do anything to avoid raising their station in life because they believe they'll revolt as soon as it does, which is not an unreasonable thing to fear given that's when regime change generally happens.
(Well, Eastern Europe still can, but Eastern Europe is poor enough that the migrants won't stay in the country anyway, so it realistically still falls to the Western Europeans to start stacking bodies if they don't want to be invaded.)
And they may think that they are owed, but that they don't owe. It's exploitation by them.
Which is the ultimate failure of communitarianism and social contract theory: this is inevitable, and there's never any opportunity for redress when (not if) this occurs.
Liberalism attempts/attempted to solve this by placing hard legal limits on what that community is and is not allowed to require- that is why 'Congress shall make no law', and it's why your neighbors aren't allowed to disarm you, and it's why the community can't quarter its army in your house, and it's why the courts must presume innocence and not hold you indefinitely, and it's why you get the benefit of the doubt in questions of search and seizure.
That is why places that are a lot more ossified and conservative- who prefer their communities to be more exploitative because they hate their neighbors' ability to do things that are new and scary (like European and other New World nations) until it's profitable [and now those communities want their cut for "providing the environment in which it can exist" or some nonsense like that]- have pretend constitutions that protect nothing.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
5d ago
basically everyone here was really a progressive?
And my extension to that is that everyone here is a traditionalist, and the only real difference between traditionalists and progressives (in terms of moral foundations and what otherwise motivates them to hold those views) to someone who is neither of those things is "about 50 years". Yes, progressives seem iconoclastic and style themselves on hatred of traditionalists, but in reality they converge on the same solutions via different ideological lenses.
(For example, traditionalists would have seduction punished because it devalues the father's property, progressives would have seduction punished because it devalues the mother [and her ability to attract men]- both see this as bad, both have the same motivations, it's just that one couches it through androsupremacy and the other through gynosupremacy).
The death of the word 'liberal' as a meaningful term had consequences.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
6d ago
Which proves a point that these brackets were always intended as a 'gotcha' more than anything else.
They were largely not sovereign nations
The Swiss and Spanish were (almost like that's why I mentioned them). The French remain relevant simply because they never adopted 7.62 NATO in any meaningful way until after the FAMAS.
The Czechs are also an interesting case, having fielded a service rifle in 7.62x45 in 1952 (more powerful than the existing 7.62x39 cartridge). So clearly the 'intermediates are the future' case isn't as clear-cut even when you have weapons available to you that are already in intermediate cartridges, but intermediate cartridges are limited in their usefulness if the gun you're using isn't a carbon copy of the StG-44 (the Czechs even had some of these actively lying around that the Soviets used to deniably arm some of its allies in North Africa).
And the StG-44 is a legitimately expensive gun to make especially if you're not well-versed in German space magic- you need magazines (and they need to be completely interchangeable; it's easier to do that with 9mm), the gun itself is more complicated (it needs to fire from a closed bolt to be viable at range), you need to supply it with enough ammunition to work (and you go through more rounds with these than you would with a full-power rifle round), and it's just as heavy as a full-power rifle is. The Czechs would eventually do the vz. 58, which is still a milled gun 15 years after it theoretically could have been made with stampings; Germany was legitimately that far ahead with the technology.
Another interesting example is Yugoslavia; they bought up most of the German surplus and were still actively using StG-44s (and AKs in 8mm Mauser, of all things) into the 1980s to supplement copies of Soviet equipment. Of course, they were and remain a relatively poor part of the world, so that wasn't as much by choice.
and forced to do so by Americans due to NATO
There was nothing stopping other countries from fielding two weapons or even to adopt it in the first place if they had sufficient logistics to do something different (or had already adopted something in large numbers re: France- who I will remind you was in possession of the future-HK engineers in charge of the StG-45); the US was doing that themselves (.30 Carbine) in the first place anyway.
So no, I'm not interested in the "stupid burger country intentionally screws up procurement" story. I will happily say that about the XM7 but in that gun's defense the US doesn't have any usable 7.62 NATO small arms in inventory aside from stuff at the end of its service life, so if they're going to switch to a more efficient (and more powerful) cartridge for a rifle and machine gun now is indeed the time.
Japanese adopted 6.5mm
Which is why I said
or with the .264s
for plenty of nations fielded rifles and machine guns in 6.5mm and 7mm (the 6.5mm cartridges all use .264 projectiles, except for the Italians who used .268). The two largest ones that actually used them in combat all dumped them for something in .30 during WW2 for reasons I already stated.
Why would switching to a .280 or something a little smaller wouldn't have made sense then?
Because it's not sufficiently intermediate and it's not just the rifles (which only form a minor part of the equation). It's worth noting that both France and Switzerland both flirted with intermediate caliber rifles (in .30 Carbine), but ultimately rejected them; if you want to go "7.62 bad because fat burger country", fine, but then why did every other Western nation that was looking to change calibers and was capable of indigenous weapons development also reject the idea? They all should have been aware of the StG-44.
We have the benefit of hindsight, and the Americans had the 'benefit' that the first war in which intermediate caliber weapons were being used against them in large numbers was one of the two terrain types in which submachine gun-type weapons utterly dominate (the other being urban warfare).
Note also that the first commercially-viable .22-caliber cartridge that wasn't an overpowered meme (sorry, .220 Swift) was a 1950s invention. It's far more difficult to make a viable bullet that small; your manufacturing tolerances have to be much better than they do with the .30s or with the .264s (which appear to be the lower limit of this, considering that other than the US adopting a bleeding-edge 6mm rifle that one time in 1895, no other military would adopt a smaller cartridge until 5.56 NATO). That's feasible with 1960s manufacturing technology, but not necessarily with 1920s or 1940s (and the Russians would take into the 1970s to figure it out).
NATO adopted what it did at the right times and nobody really got screwed over. European nations used their 1950s equipment until it wore out, then unloaded it on the Africans as military aid then developed indigenous 5.56 rifles around 1980. Not really a setback.
How many rifles or machineguns were re-barelled to use .308 post war? Some Garands
It's not just the rebarreling, it's also to facilitate easy manufacture of already-existing designs. Britain did this with the Enfield and the Bren, Germany did it with the MG3 (and some MG42s), Spain did it with the FR7/FR8, the Italians famously did it with the BM59, and the US did it with the M1919 (as well as the M14).
Converting an existing design, especially one that had seen significant and continuous improvement due to actually being used in warfare, is generally going to produce a better product than a clean-sheet design. This is one of the reasons the FAL lost in the US' rifle trials, by the way (the other is that it's just a bad gun lol).
90,000 British fought in Korea
A war they fought with Brens and No. 4s in .303. And honestly, no, the other ones don't really matter.
The British were pushing for a .280 cartridge in late '40s but Americans insisted on .308.
The US was trivially correct to reject this cartridge and the British were out of their fucking minds here. In fairness, the fact they had lost WW2 [and their Empire with it] hadn't really dawned on their people yet and wouldn't come to a head until the Suez crisis.
The thing about .280 is that it's not a good GPMG round (and it's also slightly too heavy to be that intermediate- its initial loadings were more powerful than 7.62x39 is too). 6.5 Japanese had similar ballistics to what .280 would eventually have and would be ultimately replaced on the grounds of insufficient GPMG performance- and for a US-led alliance that needed to have a logistics train that much poorer countries could support (read: one caliber for everything) the infantry rifles would need to remain in the same caliber as the machine guns.
Hence a full-power cartridge, that could be retrofit to replace both .303 and 8 Mauser (7.5 French was too fat, wouldn't have worked), was required. Yes, it'd compromise the infantry rifles somewhat, but infantry rifles weren't expected to win a war with Russia whereas American logistics was.
Note also that the Russians didn't really figure the AK out until the early 1960s, and the SKS is not better from a tactical standpoint than a Garand (or M14, or FAL) is anyway. The Russians didn't need to hurry, since they already had plenty of quasi-intermediate SMGs in inventory (the PPS-43); neither did the Americans, who used the M1 Carbine for that.
they proceeded to compromise their entire's bloc small arms procurement for the next 30 years
30 years is an acceptable timeframe over which to replace equipment. And it really didn't hold the [mostly useless] allies back: remember, the bloc consisted of Britain (who never fought a war -> didn't matter), other militarily insignificant European nations (a good chunk of whom stuck with Garands), Britain's soon-to-be-dispossessed colonies (never fought a war beyond the ones the US also fought with 7.62x51 -> didn't matter), West Germany (conquered), and France (who stuck with 7.5 French).
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
8d ago
5.56 out of a 20" barrel can defeat level IV plates
No it can't, by the definition of what level IV plates are.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
8d ago
They used AR-15s, which are not, despite years of anti-gun campaigning, particularly good rifles for waging war (or insurgency).
They're cheap, good, and half the world's nations actively use them to wage war in some capacity. If that is not a good rifle I'm not sure what is.
This theory of 'more bullets = better' is not actually better in general
Yes it is[1].
that the slower rate forces better shooting fundamentals for reliability per shot
But when we're actually fighting- we're shooting at targets that are actively trying to avoid being shot at, and trying not to be shot ourselves- and not just trying to score bullseyes on a static range, we want it to be as easy as possible for us to make hits. So we're going to use the lightest feasible caliber that will defeat the target over the distances at which we expect to engage (usually less than 100 yards), and carry the most bullets both in the gun and on the person in extra magazines (traditional rifle ammunition is quite heavy and is quickly self-limiting in how much you can carry).
5.56 is special in that the cartridge weighs about the same as 9mm does (as in, the standard pistol cartridge), recoils the same as 9mm loaded to its maximum potential, but is significantly more effective than 9mm is at longer ranges because ballistics magic[2]. And its magazines are shorter so you can have more bullets in the gun without making it unwieldly.
This is in contrast to, say, 7.62x39 (the AK round), where it weighs twice as much as 9mm, recoils twice as much, magazines with comparable ammunition quantity to a 9mm rifle make the gun relatively unwieldly, and isn't appreciably more effective than 5.56 given those things because of a lack of said ballistics magic.
Note that hunting doesn't have these constraints. Neither do specialized military applications like sniping. You want overkill in those circumstances because you're not going to get another shot- the fewer holes you put in the animal the more of its tasty body is preserved (in the hunting case), and for both of them, the ranges over which you need to shoot a target that's going to spook and disappear after the first shot mean you want something that's going to give you the easiest time of that at ranges further than those typical for combat (200-400 yards).
[1] The US Army's take on "we need a rifle to shoot 800 yards" reminds me of the time the British did that. Both nations invaded Afghanistan (and lost) before adopting a rifle like this- a nation whose geography lends itself to long-range ambush-style engagements will proceed to teach militaries that fight there they need weapons with that kind of range to be standard-issue.
And to be fair to the Brits, just like the Americans, perhaps they envision future conflicts against Near/Middle Eastern or African nations will benefit from a rifle like this- places that are scarcely urbanized, with an enemy whose dominant form of mechanization is the Toyota Hilux. Against peer nations in urban warfare, though, this is not a great plan. Of course, the Americans tend to be very good at expedient engineering; the AR-15 got issued in record time while the US was at war so if they need a new rifle they'll have one quick.
[2] The faster a bullet is going the more likely it's going to fragment or change course sharply when it hits the target. Getting a similar ballistic effect from a large cartridge means a heavier projectile [not getting into why] means a heavier cartridge means heavier recoil, so you get less of the things that make the rifle good in typical combat distances.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
10d ago
It's just... forgettable.
The title doesn't describe what the movie is about, the MC is ugly (chimp face, permanent black purple eye) and [if the critics are to be believed, was if not still is] fag-coded, and the aliens' appearance doesn't suggest any interesting personality traits.
So yeah, "I'd let my kid watch it on Netflix, but I wouldn't pay 60 dollars to see it" is a pretty apt observation.
eye patch on a kid character
Eye patches are only appropriate on kid characters if they make him/her look like a pirate for obvious reasons.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
10d ago
aren't you a LITTLE morally culpable for not taking the hit and blowing the whistle?
No. And while 'buying into it' implies/generally comes at a cost to the public at large, this is the same public perpetrating the hysterics around an action that isn't immoral (hence the need for the hysterics).
So it's on the same moral level as dodging any other tax is. No more, no less. [Which is why you want harsh consequences for elite misbehavior in this way: it's dodging the tax every other member of the public has to pay to its hysterical members.]
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
10d ago
My bigger concern is that Affirmative action et al doesn't actually primarily help the people its meant to help.
Or rather, affirmative action helps precisely the people it's meant to help, and the[ir] claim it was meant to elevate someone else was always bullshit.
In fact, it's a good exercise to ask yourself what you owe to the artwork.
True, but the child[ish]-ness of that approach goes both ways; an audience that doesn't do that misses out on what the artwork had, but an artwork that isn't trying to hide what it has [beyond what is inherent/integral to the artwork] for [and this is subject to interpretation] "fuck you lololol" reasons.
Well, that's a result of the fanbase being largely tumblrites.
And the "fuck you, domination over accommodation" thing they embody means they legitimately don't understand those characters. Hence their rush to overwrite the plain text with 'no, he can't just be a crossdresser with other motivations, he has to be trans' [even though this breaks the entire reason his character arc ends the way it does].
I want Hiruko to step on me!
>Tells the MC to kiss her
>Accidentally pushes MC off the roof instead
>Promptly commits suicide
The funny thing about her characterization is, and unique to Hiruko due to her circumstances, that a good chunk of it is in the background and implications of certain events. I think she's the only character that does this across any of his works.
Vehx route too short
Why do you think so?
(I was legitimately shocked when I played that route because it's in large degree a match for this. Which is why I don't think it needed to be any longer; it showed V'ehxness was this way, and then ended.)
Ah, Kodaka's works, one of my favorite subjects.
But this phrase, that an artist should "express themselves", makes me nervous, increasingly nervous, for reasons that I don't fully understand myself and have never been able to entirely articulate.
That's because the implication, which is "[express themselves] within the service of a greater whole", has been lost. (Can't imagine why that would be more likely to apply to artists from highly conformist cultures at all, or why audiences from those cultures would be more likely to see it that way.)
This is also the problem with 'modern' art, by the way: when the creation of a thing is not only fundamentally selfish (it isn't interested in how you'll view it), but the work itself doesn't serve any other aesthetic purpose. It's the "doesn't owe you femininity" of the art world.
Ever notice that, especially evident with how the Western world interacts with other Kodaka VNs, that 'how the presentation will be perceived' is a central element of every ambiguous-gender character (Chihiro [Danganronpa] and Halara [Rain Code])? Progressive critique falls over itself complaining about what pronoun to use [which is the exact opposite of this], but most of their character arcs again involve that perception and service to a greater whole, where their presentation is merely an incidental/a tool to do other things.
Made in Abyss is also a pretty good example of this (and an even better one if it makes you uncomfortable)- it's extremely offensive to Western sensibilities, and it would be to mine as well if the work was just one big centerfold of a naked limbless Riko- but the fact the author thinks that way is harnessed into a narrative that flat out doesn't work if the main characters either aren't children or have the invincibility child characters usually have.
(This is also something Kodaka does when he can get away with it re: Ultra Despair Girls; Omori does this too in its own way [if you compare the Omoriboy comic, the tissue box serves the same purpose in both works, but in an extremely meta sense in the game compared to the comic]).
I got weirdly obsessed with one of the girls and wanted to waifu her
Which one? The first one, the tomato, the tomboy, the onii-chan, the girlboss, the swordswoman, the one that makes fun of the audience for being Danganronpa-obsessed, Hulkamania Sister!, the ahegao-faced one, the secret one, or the enemy (not that one, the other one)?
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
12d ago
they are taking the stance of "I don't care about the impact to you, I want to have fun".
You have discovered the entire point of Independence Day, which celebrates exactly this on a nation-state level.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
13d ago
it’s a loose indication of maturity
It's an indication of someone desperate to signal maturity. [Hence, soyjacks.]
some lower or working class people who never stopped wearing them so much
You generally need to be clean-shaven for a respirator, so it's a sign you don't [have to] work in a factory.
It helps that the new wave of beards are generally speaking a little more cared for than previously.
They're all just neckbeards to me.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
13d ago
but I didn't need a klaxon to tell me that
It's a Blue Tribe Is Right About Global Warming alarm; the fact it's a klaxon in the first place tells you it really isn't well-meaning.
Western society has been on a media diet of near-constant agitprop over at least the last 100 years equating 17 year olds with 7 year olds, and most people unironically believe it, including said 17 year olds.
Why on Earth would we start drawing the distinction now, especially when the delightful moral treat of getting to call public figures pedophiles presents itself (or at least, presents itself to a media who knows its audience has been sufficiently mindkilled to parrot it uncritically)?
More options
Context Copy link