domain:mattlakeman.org
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
2m ago
I am very lost on choral chambers. Explored everywhere I saw and am kinda stuck. ALAS! I want to look stuff up but would hate to spoil more.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
8m ago
WandererintheWilderness
8m ago
This doesn't ease concerns or my condemnation. Don't celebrate murders is a good norm and weakening it among a significant, visible category of people raises the risk we see predictably bad outcomes
I agree, but the two different cases call for two very different responses. I think accusing everyone who cheers of actively encouraging assassinations is ineffective. First, because it's correctly perceived by the cheerers as inaccurately modeling their mental state, and therefore as wrong-headed criticism that can be written off altogether. Second, because it has a significant risk of Streisanding the idea of actively supporting assassinations among people who currently don't support them, but might conceivably come round to doing so if critics accidentally create spurious "common knowledge" that everyone on the left supports them.
teleoplexy
9m ago
Silksong Act 2 for me. Love the game so far, exactly what I wanted from "more Hollow Knight". Last Judge was fairly easy for me, good telegraphs and I was able to heal in between attacks.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
11m ago
The argument I’m seeing from the left that he was actually a Groyper and all the antifascist slogans were ironic has an amusing resemblance to Holocaust denial.
Meanwhile, the argument I'm seeing on Tumblr is that he's just some innocent guy the FBI are framing for some reason. Like the post simply asking: "Does anyone actually believe it was Tyler Robinson?" and so on.
Then, there was Kotaku founder, Polygon cofounder, and journalist for Variety and Rolling Stone Brian Crecente's "argument"
Oof, Charlie Kirk’s boys should have used the same team that faked Trump’s shooting. This is what happens when you try to save money on your false flag operations.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
13m ago
But with that said, I have significantly more sympathy for people who celebrate his death than seems to be common among people who don't share that celebratory mood. It doesn't feel outrageous to me that people are enjoying this. Imagine that someone you really hated was randomly struck down by a freak bolt of lightning. Wouldn't you be pretty giddy?
No, because I am not an extra slow child. If someone I loathed from the other tribe, say AOC, was shot like Kirk was, my gut reaction would be "Oh, no! She's going to be insufferable after this. She's going to ride the sympathy and milk it for the next 50 years. She might get to be president now. This is a disaster."
You make left-wingers sound like retarded children who can't grasp the basics of cause and effect.
Soteriologian
15m ago
People are not reproducing because the government promises them the labor of other people’s children in retirement.
hanikrummihundursvin
20m ago
I'm not fully aware of the nuance here. So the context of when and where matters? You can't just call and 'confess' over the phone?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
21m ago
I think taking an economic view makes it easy to miss the forest for the trees. Always look to more fundamental aspects like thermodynamics and biology first, then bend your economic model around that.
You were already taking an economic view, calling people who are living off pension money (that they presumably earned) "parasites". Presumably people who are living off employment income are not parasites, and that leads to the direct implication that you cannot store wealth.
If your economic system gives too much of a claim on young labor to old demographics, then your society will die. I’m not saying the allocation has to be zero—that there can be no long-term store of wealth—but it clearly has to be less than whatever it takes for the fertile to reproduce at replacement.
Allocation? Are we doing central planning here? The young aren't not reproducing because they are poor, and certainly not because the old people are somehow claiming all their labor.
Jiro
25m ago
"It's an understandable emotional response" isn't an excuse. You need to be acting and reasoning in good faith, and I don't believe that the people celebrating Charlie Kirk's death are. I'm not demanding that they be correct; good faith doesn't require correctness. But there comes a point where people are so blinded by hatred and so careless about their reasoning that good faith is no longer present.
If anything, when you're trying to decide if someone needs to die, that's when you need to take the greatest care, not the least.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
26m ago
You're going to have to spell that out. Usually this sort of claim is about inflation, but inflation doesn't keep you from storing wealth, it just means you can't just keep it in cash. And of course it results in taxes, but governments gonna tax.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
27m ago
The right has more guns.
And much less willingness to use them, especially in vigilante killings.
thejdizzler
28m ago
My bad, realized I said against when I meant for. I was referring to all the leftists saying Charlie Kirk deserved it because he was pro second amendment.
An interpretation that leftists are responding to a freak accident as a bystander is somewhat accurate. Rather than an act of God, like a hurricane, this is more like civilians watching an enemy bomber fall from the sky over their city. The civilians look up to the sky and cheer. The civilians aren't killing anyone themselves, no, and the fact they are bystanders -- victims, even -- lifts any responsibility for not cheering on death. It might even be considered imperative to cheer. This is their city, their neighbors, and friends suffering under the bombardment. Who wouldn't cheer as the enemy is made to pay?
Leftists don't take this behavior seriously, are having a good time, and don't consider themselves responsible. I suspect that is usually true. Individuals enjoy becoming partners in crime by crossing a taboo, signal allegiance, or justify celebration with a commitment to conflict. The performative intent is also there when leftists decide to dance on the grave of a dead healthcare CEO then decide to worship his dreamy murderer.
Don't get me wrong I am glad that most expressions of celebration are made by bystanders having a good time rather than by hardened killers. This doesn't ease concerns or my condemnation. Don't celebrate murders is a good norm and weakening it among a significant, visible category of people raises the risk we see predictably bad outcomes. That leftists do not consider or respect this risk is of no comfort. In darker times, should it become apparent It wasn't my fault isn't going to cut it.
Plus, it's not as if leftists are detached from the events. Rather than a comedian looking for a punch-line to tragedy they care as much any other group. They jump in the trenches when its their turn to spin the Guess the Perp wheel and argue about this policy or another. They have a good time celebrating the death of their enemy, then they have another kind of time of as they commiserate with each other on a perceived state of crisis. They have a third, additional kind of time declaring fascism of yesterday eclipsed by the fascism of tomorrow. They are no more or less accidental bystanders to these social phenomena as any other part of the lefty egregore.
I contend that for the average left-wing rando, "some nutjob has shot Charlie Kirk" has about the same valence as "Charlie Kirk has been struck by lightning"
What is the polar opposite case? I'd expect there to be plenty of right-wing anons dancing on the grave of, say, Hasan Piker. It's not a 1:1 comparison. Kirk, unlike Piker, was legitimized inside mainstream political power, whereas Piker is still primarily a shitposter millionaire who streams to teenagers and gets NYT profiles. Right wing anons aren't usually professors comfortable with expressing support for political murders. But, yeah, I wouldn't say that the right-wing is impervious to breaking this norm, or even faithful followers of this norm. The political class still mutters the words, but it doesn't take.
In the future, if we aren't living it, we may all have permission to cheer on one person or another bleeding out on a stage. We may even take turns. It's a darn shame.
This would make sense.... if they weren't so for gun control.
There is definitely a lot to be said about proportionality in defense.
If someone pokes you in the chest with their finger, even with anger, you should probably (read: DEFINITELY) not shoot them.
They shove you, you should probably not punch their lights out.
But either of those acts is "Proof via demonstration" that they do not respect your bodily autonomy, and consider it fair to physically engage in violence.
That's what makes it 'justifiable' to return the same to them, as far as I'm concerned.
"minimal force necessary" works as a limiting factor, but I don't know that it works as a justification in and of itself.
"unless they use it against me first" is adding a special exemption.
Not really.
I'm not conferring any privilege upon myself that I think they don't have. There is no special 'quality' that I possess that grants me some moral authority over them.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, in fact. I do not believe myself entitled to enact violence on others without justification. I assume that other people ALSO believe this... until proven otherwise.
When I think of "Special exemption" I mean something like "I'm white and you're black, therefore I'm allowed to beat you." (see: the history of slavery in the U.S.). "I'm a woman and you're a man, therefore you can't hit me back."
Creating a category that you count yourself in that permits you to do things to people outside that category. And usually this category is 'arbitrary' and doesn't actually suffice to justify special status. "I'm the King and you're a peasant" sort of kind of justifies the king beating the peasant, to the extent the Peasant agrees that the King has been granted divine authority by God to rule.
I'm quite simply not doing anything like that. "I'm defending myself and you're attacking" doesn't rely on the qualities of the people involved. Simply a question of whether one is doing it to the other without 'justification.'
I could admit there's an amount of social construction going on here, but I think reasonable minds can reach a LOT of agreement as to what constitutes 'aggressive' violence, simply based on what you would agree you DON'T want others doing to you.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
37m ago
I still think of myself as a socialist, perhaps less so recently, and I want to shake this person and ask what good this kind of statement actually does for our cause.
Well, to quote one trans activist's video:
You don’t have to like violence, but I’m confused at how you thought the revolution would be magically bloodless.
srf0638
37m ago
Strongly endorse all this, but re:
Inevitably, this rabbit hole includes taking the plunge and roasting green coffee beans for your own consumption
I'll add that this step entails the initial promise of freshly roasted beans on demand for the (low) cost of green coffee and amortized equipment costs, but also the dawning realization that you will have to spend a lot more time and money than you think to match the quality of product you can get from specialty roasters. Not to say it isn't 100% worth it, at least at the level of hobby roasting and freshly but not especially artfully roasted beans, but it's something to consider.
srf0638
42m ago
Try making a few cups with bottled water and see if you like it better, or at least that's what I did.
In response to one of your other comments, Sweet Maria's used to say that the blade grinders were good enough for pourover, and I'd say that one will at least pay for itself while you decide if you want to spend any more money on the hobby.
07mk
48m ago
"Self-Defense" is actually quite simple. "I will not use violence against any person... UNLESS they use it against me first." Both defense and offense are 'using violence.' But generally speaking, offense is the one who initiated, and defense is the person responding to it.
This is a tangential point, I think, but I don't think of self defense this way. I see violence in self defense as justified not because of some sort of reciprocity around someone marking themselves as an enemy combatant when they initiate violence on you, but rather because some form of violence is almost always the minimal force necessary to prevent (further) damage on you when someone is enacting violence on you.
This is one reason why, even if the whole 6-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon-logic of Kirk enacting "violence" on oppressed minorities or whatever were accepted, I fully reject that that would justify physical violence against him. Presuming that everything every one of Kirk's haters are 100% true about their characterization of Kirk's words, physical violence is still several orders of magnitude greater than the minimum force necessary to prevent the government from enacting the violence that Kirk's words would eventually cause many months and years down the line.
Tanista
49m ago
I feel like this should be my handle at this point but: It's Just Twitter.
Remember learn to code? No? Why would you?
What sounds like innocuous career advice is, in many cases, part of targeted harassment. The phrase “learn to code” was added to Know Your Meme four days ago, where it’s described as “an expression used to mock journalists who were laid off from their jobs, encouraging them to learn software development as an alternate career path.” Part of the Know Your Meme entry explains that those posting the phrase “believe those news organizations have been shitting on blue-collar workers for years.” Additionally, writer Talia Lavin posted screenshots from 4chan that suggest the “learn to code” tweets were a targeted attack by the notorious online message board. “Learn to code” is more than internet schadenfreude. It’s also the most recent rallying cry of an anti-media faction.
There was word Twitter was taking down “learn to code” tweets because they fall under the umbrella of abusive content, but a Twitter spokesperson clarified its position in an email: “It’s more nuanced than what was initially reported. Twitter is responding to a targeted harassment campaign against specific individuals—a policy that’s long been against the Twitter Rules.” Twitter also directed me to its policy on targeted harassment, which prohibits “behavior that encourages others to harass or target specific individuals or groups with abusive behavior.” I also asked Twitter whether it was able to identify coordinated efforts directed at the mass of recently laid-off writers, or whether it could tell where those efforts were coming from, but the company did not respond as of publishing.
They broke any attempt to coordinate what is basically a mean-spirited joke (assuming it was coordinated in the first place - if it's anything like reddit and "brigading" there's a lot of crying wolf). No way would they allow this sort of thing. Elon not only allows it, he signal-boosts it.
YMMV on which is better.
I agree though that act 2 is great compared to act 1 so far lol.
More options
Context Copy link