@netstack's banner p


Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC


User ID: 647


Texas is freedom land

6 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 647

Hell yeah, Frazetta covers. Men would kill to have her quads.

The male fantasy…

Eh, you can get all sorts of bizarre effects if you count negative utility. Accelerationist shit where eliminating humans is the only way to minimize pain in the long run.

On the more sane side, I would guess modern medicine makes liver disease significantly less painful than a liver shot.

I like this idea.

I’d actually underestimated how many were concentrated in the DC metroplex. The CDC is in Atlanta, and that’s…almost it.

He looks for a better job.

Or he picks better goals. “Never give an order that won’t be obeyed,” after all.

It sounds like an accurate label to me, yes.

Ironic as you’re “acting.” Stupid as “nobody ever thinks” it.

Counterpoint: God created man (and woman), but Sam colt made them equal. There’s nothing inherently revolting about a woman with a gun. In fact, I’d say there are lot of ways to make female violence appealing to men, especially if skin-tight costumes are involved.

The catch is that making the violence great is still only going to pull in men. Might even push women away, whether or not the lead provides Representation. It’s not hard to believe that female audiences are generally looking for something else in their films.

Now, a more nuanced claim might say that empowering women is incompatible with the post-Bourne zeitgeist of gritty, jump cut fisticuffs. Maybe the 80s fetish for martial arts provided suspension of disbelief. Maybe men lost all plausible deniability for wanting Trinity to step on them.

I’ve gotten the impression that the generic modern fight scene is just a lot cheaper and easier to produce. You don’t need Jackie Chan on retainer. Movies which do invest heavily in stunts and choreography, ones like Fury Road, still come out looking pretty good.

I don’t think he’s supporting guesswho or the directors so much as arguing with the Hoff.

Wasn’t FFN ridiculously female-dominated? I know early Harry Potter fandom was. A casual google doesn’t turn up much, but consider this thread where Redditors suggest 22% men is unusually high.

Point is, I think the gender balance within platforms is going to be swamped by the history of those platforms. Like Ao3 specifically refusing to ban certain taboos. At best you get a chicken and egg. Which came first: the forum dedicated to spaceship combat, or the audience of turbo-autists?

Mind you, I don’t disagree with the basic premise. The median masculine story is wildly different to the feminine one. And the 80th percentiles are probably mutually incomprehensible. Try to cite specific examples, though, and you’ll immediately run into Sturgeon’s Law.

No, no.

You’re allowed to cause great injury and/or post cringe. What you aren’t supposed to do is ironic stupidity.

Know the difference.

For that to be true, wouldn’t the arriving demographics have to be less libertarian and more woke? The latter doesn’t seem to be the case so far. The former, maybe, but I also wouldn’t describe our immigrants as particularly authoritarian.

I'm going to chime in, too, because I was looking at this before nara, dammit!

I can't tell how many levels of irony you're on. It's kind of a moot point, given the "speaking plainly" rule. I don't have any reason to believe that you're trying to pull one over on those dumb idiots who can't comprehend your humor. And yet, users dipping into farce have a strange tendency to push that boundary. Please don't give me such a reason.

Oh, is this the one where you can synchronize your team to snipe different targets on your signal? I thought that was cool.

An outsider can not and could not have walked up and said “here, I am higher on this stack than you, so let me speak.” Progressives settled on a consensus for that stack before ever showing up to a protest. The OP’s approach wants to change that consensus, and it’s not going to work.


I spent a couple years at a private school which was designed for autistic integration. Maybe 10% of the students had a pretty severe disability. Some of them worked through the social skills, the emotional development, and so on. Presumably they get to engage with society. Others...they will spend their whole lives with significant reliance on their caretakers. These were all kids with loving parents and enough of a support network to pay private-school tuition. Not everyone has that.

Well, I guess I learn something every day. I'll concede that actual protestors were using this actual term to describe their procedure.

I don't think we disagree that it was useless, even then, for an outsider. There was a post a while back about--I think it was "the cool kids don't have to ask." They've read the room and have a feel for the consensus. Then and only then can they refer to the stack.

Hm. I want to share this with one of my oldest friends, a tech worker, a newly minted Seattlite, and yes, a trans woman. I want to ask “is this right? Is this what you see outside?” Given that one of her first comments on moving to the city was “I don’t think I’ve ever been catcalled at 3 PM before,” I feel like the answer might be yes.

But it’s a moot point. I also don’t think I want my IRL friends browsing this place. May God have mercy on our souls.

You ever find a good answer on engagement range?

I’ve been playing STALKER: Anomaly, and despite having modern military styling and lots of Tarkov mechanics, combat is still largely within the 15m window. Against mutant animals, fine, they’re going to rush you. But humans? The opportunities to use a derelict commie block as a sniper nest, or pick off a merc squad caught in the open, are awesome…when they happen. You just spend a lot more time clearing houses. The game rarely has enough space to play with your full range.

This is often referred to as the progressive stack,

By whom? The people I’ve seen insist on this term are not progressives, but critics interested in scoring rhetorical points.

Say I argued that Christians rely on a “religious stack.” I could probably come up with a half-decent ordering. Surely Christians tend to prefer Judaism to Islam, or insular Amish sects to rival missionaries, or spirituality to atheism. But it would be foolish to use a placement on this list—which I had just created—as an argument for Christians to do something differently. The model might be descriptive, but it is very much not prescriptive.

If progressives don’t pick their causes according to a stack, your strategy is dead on arrival. You will never gain mainstream support by fitting yourself into a model which the mainstream doesn’t use.

When you do decide to chime in, do so politely, please.

One week ban.

With all these other factors, why do you think severity of enforcement makes the difference?

Yes, you can. Don’t expect it to get a response, since yours won’t be visible to the blocker. The bit about “higher standards” just means don’t try and exploit that by asking (unanswerable) questions or going for personal attacks.

Please remain civil, even when you suspect your interlocutors are playing dumb. Talking past each other won’t make it any better. For that matter, neither will flouncing off. Random readers can and will come away with the impression that you’re the unreasonable one.

Guilt and shame isn’t equivalent to jail time. Algorithmic service isn’t the same as actually providing drugs. Which, at least in freedom land, isn’t actually illegal, not from a parent to his or her child. Not that youtube provides a parental or even collegiate level of authority over viewers!

Frankly, the analogy is completely incoherent.

It’s one thing to make it clear that you don’t like lawyers. Dressing it up in sarcasm, though, moves it firmly into sneering territory.

Every month or so, you get a warning for this. Every time, you come back and alternate between actual engagement and this sort of sneer. Take three days off this time.