domain:apollomindset.substack.com
veqq
7hr ago
For context, I mentioned that I support regime change/oppose the government because people misunderstood my criticism of the government as "defending". I don't especially advocate for Cruz/Trump driven-regime change though I'd pray for its success.
Hussein was secular, Gaddafi was secular, Assad was secular...
Indeed. The powers that be do not care nor wish for human flourishing (to the extent they had good policies). Replacing the Khmer Rouge with something less bad is a net win for humanity, even if international recognition doesn't improve.
No total regime collapse? No neighboring countries swooping in to setup a puppet state? No civil war? No refugee wave?
I was describing the current situation, to explain apathy/lack of significant reformist movements. A civil war would naturally create a large refugee wave, but we don't know whether continued force will cause regime change nor what any of this looks like. As I stated before, I'm skeptical of the current admin's ability to engineer a positive outcome.
Syria ... "doctors and engineers"
Syrians were at a "higher" cultural and educational level, than other Arab countries. The "issue"'s that they supported the regime and didn't emigrate, which motivated groups deftly left out.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
7hr ago
This seems to be built into the system from the start
A necessity of elected political leadership is that they are elected, which is going to tend to select for electability rather than expertise. With appointees one expects a measure of expertise (and you even get it occasionally), but people like senators or the president are necessarily going to be amateurs and generalists. They have staffers and career civil servants to provide them with expert advice.
Perhaps it's just another sign of how completely warped the federal government has become compared to what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The first cabinet was full of talented amateurs. The first Senate was basically a collection of lawyers and planters/rich farmers.
WhiningCoil
7hr ago
This is straining my memory some, but I recall the gambit system in the original game being much more finely tuned than Zodiac Age. It only gave you the option of automating poisona for instance, after you'd spent a dungeon manually curing poison in combat. In Zodiac Age you can purchase all the gambits right from the jump, letting you automate everything immediately. I recall the original had this effect of, as soon as a task got tedious, the option was available to automate it. In Zodiac Age the game feels like it's playing itself more.
I did find I was constantly tweaking my gambits, most on account of status effects. Another difference I remember was that with the OG license board, I could give all my characters some low level spells, like Protect or Shell, so the whole party would work together to keep those protection spells up. In Zodiac Age, you tell your single white mage in the part to keep everyone protected, it's virtually all they do it takes so long to cast 3 times in a row, and then it's nearly worn off! Meanwhile they aren't healing or curing status effects.
I donno, I think some of the quality of life features in Zodiac Age actually made the game worse in ways that are counter intuitive.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
7hr ago
Thoroughlygruntled
7hr ago
I think Gorsuch is a kind of hyper-textualist (sometimes to the exclusion of other indications of original public meaning), and the difference between his positions here and in Bostock can mostly be chalked up to the fact that Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause do not, in fact, say the same thing. Title VII is explicitly broader than the Equal Protection Clause in a way that Gorauxh finds dispositive.
I think he was wrong on Bostock to ignore the fact that literally no one thought Title VII had anything to say on the trans issue when it was enacted, but it's a legitimate opinion that other good-faith conservatives and libertarians I know agree with. And Gorsuch hasn't generally shown himself to be a beltway clout-chaser in my opinion. Certainly nothing like Roberts or Kavanaugh. If anything, he has an almost autistic tendency to stick to his guns when he's saying something unpopular.
sun_the_second
7hr ago
There was only one Venerable at a time, from what I recall. In addition to just how plain hard it is to become one, enough that their reigns were nowhere near consecutive (they collectively were only alive for no more than 10% of total known history), the first thing a Venerable would likely be doing at any given moment is making sure no one else is strong enough to become one.
sohois
7hr ago
FFXII was such an incredible disappointment after X. Starts off really well, but after 10 hours you realize the only gambits you need are low health > heal and attack, and there is absolutely nothing of interest when it comes to building a character. The licence board was entirely pointless. All that was left was the story, which as you say became incomprehensible very quickly
HereAndGone
7hr ago
Being the one single strongest person might well content him, or he might find it boring after all that now he's achieved ultimate power and there's no place higher to go.
Were the Venerables vulnerable to one another, or was there only one at a time? If he proves that it is possible to become immortal, then that is a strong incentive for others who reach the highest ranks to keep on trying to reach that rank as well, and if there are two Immortals, can they co-exist? Will they be able to damage each other, or would that be impossible?
But that would be a whole other novel, I imagine.
yofuckreddit
7hr ago
I think that'd be the difference. Your approach is great for actually getting better and building confidence. For benchmarking, I'd argue it's not providing as much value.
HereAndGone
7hr ago
I had no idea who Natalie Winters was, so the parody/whatever flew right over my head. Now it turns out she's some White House correspondent or something and she did something dumb? Well I'm sure no journalist or media pundit ever has done anything dumb before, so naturally that makes it newsworthy.
OliveTapenade
7hr ago
I believe it's to do with dispensationalism and particularly with Cyrus Scofield?
For the unfamiliar, dispensationalism is a theological belief - some, probably including me, would say it's a heresy - that says that God divides the history of the world up into several phases. These phases are called 'dispensations', and the conditions, both material and moral, of the world depend on the dispensation in question. Thus what is required of people in the age of grace may be different to that in the age of law, and then also different to that in the age of the church, and so on. Great events in the world may mark shifts between dispensations.
As far as that goes it may seem harmless. It's unbiblical, but if you want to invent a scheme to guide you through your understanding of history, why not?
The thing is, Scofield felt that the nation of Israel played a role throughout the various dispensations, that particular promises to it endured, and most tellingly, he identified 'Israel' in the biblical sense with a visible nation even down to the modern day (which for him was the late 19th century). This predates the establishment of the state of Israel, but Scofield was a Zionist, albeit due to his understanding of Christian prophecy.
This is in itself a somewhat unbiblical move. Notably in Romans 9, the apostle Paul distinguishes between those that are Israelite 'according to the flesh', and those included and justified on the basis of faith. He asserts that 'not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants', but rather membership of the true Israel is to be reckoned on the basis of faith. In this you may see parallels to Matthew 3:9 and John 8:39, where both John the Baptist and Jesus appear to place one's deeds and one's character above one's descent according to the flesh. So whatever it is New Testament authors are doing with Israel as a concept, it's not simply identifiable with a hereditarian group or an ethnicity, much less a political structure.
I understand Cruz to be roughly in the Scofield-ian camp, but this camp would not be recognisable to most historical Christians, including many around the world today. Cruz has a weird obsession with Israel that doesn't play well with everyone - famously he was booed off-stage by actual Middle Eastern Christians back in 2014.
For what it's worth my understanding, from a Christian perspective, is that the state of Israel is, theologically speaking, completely irrelevant. It is of no greater or lesser value than any other nation on Earth. There is no special reason to support it and no special reason to oppose it. The biblical category of Israel - and the covenant with Israel - is continuous with and contained within the new covenant of Christ, particularly insofar as Christ himself becomes a kind of microcosm or representation of Israel itself. The promises made to the Jewish people according to the flesh remain valid so far as they go, but where they were always intended to go was towards the redemption of the world in Christ. As such, insofar as contemporary Jews hold to those promises, that is good, but the promises are incomplete without their fulfilment. And any further that direction lies a more complicated discussion about what evangelism means in the admittedly unusual context of evangelising to Jews, but we don't need to get into that now.
WhateverHappenedToNorman
7hr ago
This is not impassionata. For one, AT has been a SSC/ACX commenter for a long time, also, the views don't match.
There is more than one annoying person in the internet.
WhiningCoil
7hr ago
What these platforms give you is simple setup and a quantifiable number of where you stand. When you contribute to an OS project you're trying to determine the starting quality of the project, how much "cache" it has, the value of your contribution.... much more complex.
I don't do any of that shit. I use OS software, and occasionally, when I have an excess of free time, I fix bugs and add features that I personally care about. Sometimes I even get them merged back in. I'm not resume building explicitly (but maybe, I donno), but it's great for my confidence. Getting anybody to accept code you wrote is great for confidence.
HereAndGone
7hr ago
Guy writes fun short story.
We seem to have different definitions of what counts as "fun". I couldn't get past the opening paragraphs as it was just so bad - as bad as a John Oliver piece about "Drumpf bad! Him orange! Orange bad! Geddit? GEDDIT???"
Tiber727
7hr ago
Unless you view this as a fully-general argument against any sort of minority view?
If the minority view has been presented for a long time and gotten no traction, and the one proposing it again doesn't seem to have any actionable ideas to make it more palatable this time, then I absolutely would. Particularly when we're talking about trying to get the public to wait to have sex. Prostitution is called "the oldest profession" for a reason. Even when shaming pre-marital sex was ascendant - the vast majority of history - it was very frequently not followed. Now that contraception and abortion methods have advanced I don't see how you plan to get the genie back into the bottle. Pre-marital sex has a very easy product to sell and you have a very difficult product to sell. Yes, views rise and fall with the era but not all are equal. If someone wanted to bring slavery back they are going to have a very uphill battle.
Botond173
7hr ago
Is there a specific name for the culture war dictate/guideline of "my rules, applied unfairly > my rules, applied fairly > the opponent's rules, applied fairly > the opponent's rules, applied unfairly"?
yofuckreddit
8hr ago
I agree with you, man. But you're talking to a depressed guy who doesn't really understand a retirement account and hasn't mustered the energy to move out of his parent's house.
What these platforms give you is simple setup and a quantifiable number of where you stand. When you contribute to an OS project you're trying to determine the starting quality of the project, how much "cache" it has, the value of your contribution.... much more complex.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8hr ago
You have no idea the quality of Fanfiction I will willingly read.
HereAndGone
8hr ago
Nah, this is not Impassionata. The Passionate One has a very distinctive style and a different set of bees in the bonnet. While they might well be able to switch to a different voice, the things that make them twitch are unique to them and would show up sooner or later.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8hr ago
I kind of assumed that your flair meant that you were taking the role of MSNBC if it was a person and was posting. Like how we talk about "alts" as alternative accounts that a single person has.
HereAndGone
8hr ago
I don't even know what "BASED" subculture is supposed to be. Can we at least get some sort of card of runners and riders to keep straight who is supposed to be what on the boo-list?
pigeonburger
8hr ago
Personally, I've been hit by the thunderbolt before, but I think it's not an indicator of any kind of compatibility, but our biology's attempt at getting people who are failing to pair bond to reproduce regardless.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8hr ago
Why would I have a problem with it?
I don't know, because you aren't speaking plainly.
I am a pronatalist, eugenics-supporting, 4chan-brained guy with "Alt" in my flair.
That doesn't have any particular bearing on why you were moderated, which is that you were not speaking plainly, and appeared to be weakmanning.
I am you, the difference is I can see Winters for what she is rather than what I want her to be.
You're certainly not me, and before your post I had never heard of Winters. It's still not clear to me why I should care who she is at all, or why you care who she is at all. Because you have yet to speak plainly.
The story featured a woman in a Right-wing space assumed by its denizens to be liberal, who by the end realized she wasn't.
This does not appear to have any particular bearing on my moderation of the post.
Almost as if there's an analogy there.
Speak plainly.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
8hr ago
"Speaking plainly" that wasn't.
FF12 was when the series began to die for me. The gambit system is un-fun because then the game is just playing itself, and the game really pushes you hard into using it. I tried to play manually but it sucks because you have to keep switching characters (rather than the game auto-switching when their turn comes up), and it gets too hectic to keep up with that anyway. The writing is kind of a mess too; I played all the way through and couldn't figure out what had happened in the story until I read a summary on Wikipedia. Good characters and world though.
More options
Context Copy link