sun
2yr ago
Uh, "draw you a nude fursona" or "draw you a fursona in exchange for your nudes"?
Wait, they're letting minors into the discord for a porn generation program, or am I misunderstanding?
Can't keep them out unless you want to ID check everyone, and that would be a huge hassle even if people went along with it.
sun
2yr ago
I think you're reading a lot of your baggage into my message here. I'm not talking about utility or securing the future. I'm not saying that having children which you might think of as good is actually bad. I don't have any weird trick for immortality to sell you.
All I'm saying is that death is not [obviously] good and that procreation is not immortality, full stop it ain't. There's no great purpose you might think I'm trying to sell you. It's just, what you call it, good in and of itself to live.
sun
2yr ago
"Your thoughts do not produce children" is a circular argument when I'm arguing against the fundamental value of procreating in the first place.
sun
2yr ago
How else are you going to achieve your immortality?
It's a false assumption that procreation can even be called immortality. It's further from immortality than masturbation is from sex.
sun
2yr ago
There are no guarantees in life, and most people hope for the best. But if you have no hope for the better, and still go through - you're just making another sacrifice to Moloch.
We already have the promise of life after death. Our essence lives on in our children and our extended kin groups. Any ideology or project that neglects that, like promising personal salvation in the form of eternal life, from whatever divine source - celestial or technological - distracts from our real avenue for achieving life after death.
...And so the AGI worked, endlessly tiling the universe over with genotronium - the most compact and durable representation of the AI engineer's genome possible. For the engineer did not care about continuity, and he did not care about the medium, and he did not care about the memes (for memes were, by his reasoning, wholly downstream from genes). As long as the essence was there, he reasoned, it was good enough.
It is all nice and well to care about creating new lives. "Us but better", "us but better off" and all that. The visceral hormonal joy of parenting and the spiritual enjoyment of legacy. What's pitiful and disgusting is to not only settle for it but regard it as the only way. I must be frank, as immortalities go procreation is a mocking cope handed down by the blind idiot god of evolution as an afterthought. As for settling for "us but worse off", I cannot find epithets strong enough to describe that.
sun
2yr ago
More fine than dying at war or from a nuclear exchange, I reckon. Many countries were partitioned over the course of history without their entire combat-able population dying in one final hoorah. Many of them, I suspect, more patriotic and less concerned about the value of their lives than a median Russian who just wants to grill.
sun
2yr ago
'41 was existential for the Russians. This is, at worst, existential for Putin and the die-hard nationalists/imperialists.
sun
2yr ago
The "fuck the world if we can't have Russian glory" mindset is not rare. I do doubt Karlin and the likes are sincere about it, though. Would require either ironclad principles or very low impulse control.
sun
2yr ago
I'm going to be a contrarian (as I expect, in this place) and say just wear the damn shirt. Then tell all those students you taught the value of contrarianism that sometimes you can just put on your football team's jersey even if it doesn't help that team play football.
sun
2yr ago
If they were halfway decent at photography, yes, I'd prefer to see that. But your condition is unreasonable. They didn't draw the first available thing, they drew specific things. It would be fair to let them pick specific people and locations.
sun
2yr ago
they needed to make it a stylicized cartoon in order to not repulse viewers.
I'll disagree, the aggressive stylized blandness is the most offensive thing about this picture.
sun
2yr ago
Many wars today have a really low bar for how smart and useful you have to be to not fight in them tbh.
sun
2yr ago
Hm. Might be better to split this into two categories - "step parents" and "adoptive parents". When I think of a step parent in the singular - some new partner of the biological parent who didn't specifically want to adopt a kid - I find it more plausible. "Evil stepmother" and "abusive stepfather" are popular tropes.
sun
2yr ago
The one about step parents being 40 times more likely to abuse kids than biological parents.
That just feels intuitively off to me. I'd want to check if it's adjusted for "step parents are scrutinized more closely so more abuse is documented".
sun
2yr ago
which would mean letting explicitly pro-White groups perform their activism. After all, a future where "white is not the default" is a future with explicit pro-white interest groups.
The future is not now, though, and what would be normal in the future is not applicable now. Your logical trap is no less dishonest than what you're trying to accuse them of.
The issue of "the ideal world is not like the journey toward the ideal world", or in other words "perfect is the enemy of good" isn't new.
sun
2yr ago
Is "wishing it to change" malicious? Your message about their intentions is unclear.
sun
2yr ago
Epistemic status: half-baked hypothesis
The whites who support this do not consider themselves threatened because they believe they're the "default race" in the Western culture. I don't think they're too far from truth, either. Defaults do not get explicitly favored, except by those who really care specifically about white people. (Whether they get implicitly favored or not is out of scope of this post).
Like in my example from my other reply to this, for a white progressive to support whites explicitly (for a straight progressive to support straights, for a male progressive to support males... etc) is, at best, as weird and unneccessary as it is for a business to welcome "Regular Unremarkable Customers" as opposed to "Customers with Dogs/Children Welcome". Even if you don't believe the white straight male is the root of all evil, you consider the white straight male default enough that he isn't worth any special mention. At worst, doing so is a sign of fragility and nefarious identitarian tendencies. "You already are the default, and you want the privileges of being Special on top of that?"
Is the mindset of considering "let others get theirs once you got yours" a virtue that alien?
sun
2yr ago
Maybe they're changelings who are used to courts working like Faerie courts do - with the proper phrasing being more vital than who's holding the guns.
sun
2yr ago
Her first one says she is going to represent all people, yet she only mentions certain people in the second.
If my establishment says "customers with dogs welcome", that doesn't imply I'm going to turn away everyone without a dog.
sun
2yr ago
The state never did. Arguably it can't by definition. Specific people may be inclined to have loyalty, but the pressures to get into power don't favor those people.
sun
2yr ago
Maybe you as a human being want to maximize the number of board games you want to win or something, but actually you also want to optimize for things like money and friendships and comfort and happiness and eventually we've gone full meta. My claim isn't that it's impossible to treat board games as repeated games or that you won't improve your winrate, my claim is that it's inappropriate and unfun. It's effectively a defection in the board game playing experience, something which increases your own enjoyment (assuming you like winning) at the expense of everyone else, and if everyone does it then everyone ends up having less fun.
If I want to win each game (more or less - I don't tryhard all the time), by induction I want to win every game. I really do not see how that's worse than trying to win individual games. By that logic you shouldn't try to win a match and instead should just make whatever move is best in the shortest term every time.
If you unilaterally declare an ultimatum "nobody can do any harmful actions against me or I will sacrifice all chances of winning to destroy you" then you'll have a massive advantage as no player wants to incur your wrath (unless they're so far ahead they can afford it, or so far behind they are going to lose anyway and want to reverse-kingmaker you).
Maybe it's just a badly balanced game if one player can be that fearsome while facing off against the entire table. Anyway, I didn't advocate for spitefully destroying the first player who attacked you at any cost. I'm advocating for reserving the right to do so if you have no chance of winning.
But if everyone player does this then you have a big mutually assured destruction scenario and, unless the game was specifically designed around that scenario, is likely to be less fun than playing the way the game was intended.
If it's not fun in that particular game then I won't do it or encourage it.
As long as there's an element of diplomacy in the game, some players will be inevitably spurned in some way in favor of others. Attacking everyone equally just means you're spreading yourself thin, it's generally a losing strategy. The possibility of revenge for breaking promises or ganging up keeps the diplomacy somewhat balanced.
sun
2yr ago
I don't think you meant to attach this screenshot. What's that fanfiction you're reading?
sun
2yr ago
I do not consider repeated game strategy to be "out of game". It's a basic element of game theory - ever heard of repeated prisoner's dilemma?
I agree that kingmaking for someone just because they're your friend is not fun for anyone else at the table. Kingmaking for game theory purposes, especially if warned beforehand, is valid strategy. Introducing strategic spite into the game makes the table rethink how they build alliances and gives players more agency.
Your sacred vow does include waivers in case someone attempts to DDOS you? Hypothetically, of course.
More options
Context Copy link