In today's news...


Aug 29, 2016
949
93
There's a significantly different approach in the west vs elsewhere, though. Speaking primarily on the west, the left is quick to publicly harass and shame anyone who disagrees with them, and lob baseless accusations. This is your argument debunked. Now, contrast that with the right, who, during the process related to the previously-mentioned event, didn't say "all women are liars, you're a dumbass for believing them" but actually, "we aren't saying it never happens or women don't deserve to be believed, but in this instance, it's difficult to take this one woman's word based on the evidence presented." The only one who acted provocatively was Trump, and that was mostly because people expect it of him.
That's actually upholding my argument that morality will be different in different group. Have you considered, that people throwing baseless accusations could be fully certain that what they are doing is the good thing? Not saying it needs to be, but that's how ideologies work. You will see that often in a lot of sects, there doesn't need to be a reason or logic, as long as belief is there. That's morality for you, different in different places. Generally, any group that achieves power status, will get corrupted and a lot of times other groups will either try to join or attack to steal same status. That's why there is no good side to choose from as long as it's based on belief.
I'll play against this kind of thinking. Morality is solely based on community values vs emotional. Yes, fringe "feel good" people exist and try to rally against the community's ideology because "MUH FEELS", but that's such an irrelevant populace up until it becomes so common that it must be addressed. This morality of emotion is now so common it must be addressed. Opposed? Maybe. Denigrated? Possibly. But to assume it's always an emotional fielding and not a communal failing is horribly misinformed. A community which doesn't cull the outliers and/or ostracize them for their beliefs which directly oppose that community will inevitably fall to ruin.
In a way, yes. That's why I said closely tied. There are others factors, but there is a lot of emotion in the process... which could also depend on the issue itself. I specifically used a horrific type of event, because it rises emotional views on the issue of murdering people in a form of solution. However... if we assume 100% that it is community values vs emotional, then that will highly depend on community itself. If it's... for example, common in that community for 12yo kid to get a tattoo as an aspect of gaining adulthood, no one will say anything. In another community it will be viewed as retarded and abuse. Now our morality is community values + emotional for both sides. While only one will be correct, it won't be based neither on community values or emotions (though, those can work as a support), because a tattoo at such young age will get stretched and will be needed to be redone while there are issues of spreading disease to a weak body of a kid. In latter case, it's a risk of sick community that can't prosper. Neither values nor emotions are constant, thus why morality is not a constant value but more of a equal sign when things are waged.
However, to agree with your point, as there is now proven ground to it: Yes, morality of emotion didn't work and is a failed method. But... it's easier for men to not act like men, while women are used to it due to thousands of years of evolution.
It's easier when a vet says there is nothing that can be done to save your dog rather than being put in a choice that will be harsh emotionally or harsh financially and you can't afford it.

Hey, Yosh, Rome called.
I know, Nero said "brb".

That's both right and wrong. Boogie is an emotionally-abusive asshat whose recent ex-wife finally got tired of his shit and dropped him. He's now dating a goth slut or some shit and still calls his ex, claiming he still loves her. She wants none of it. He presents his position as purely a victim and the "outlier of the norm" for white males. Problem is, much of it is glory-hounding and trying to get people to empathize with his plight.
You are aware his viewers are quite young? Many of them wouldn't be able to register on this forum. We however are adults and can clearly see what's going on. Dunno what to say here honestly since we both agree he is just fat piece of tard shit. RIP boogie2988, you dipshit.

Anita is... wow. Do you have a few hours? If "conman" could summarize her, that would be fine and she'd be ultimately irrelevant, similar to Peter Molyneux. Apologies for direct linking to IGN
True, but not everyone knows who she is, for them a conman is a good start. On the other side, giving her more than she deserves only works for her. Thots tend to go for attention, bad or good. As long as she is irrelevant, she can't do anything.

Desperation drives the species to expose both its best and worst qualities. Here's a summary:
Hahaha, pretty much.
Basically, people are shit, and are excessively shitty when faced with their own mortality. It's only a handful who can manage to present the best despite hardship under duress.
And rarely those kind of people want to lead or be in charge, because they know how corrupted one can get. Shit covered in gold is still shit.
You're equating outright, blatant racial antagonism and calling for its slaughter to a few guys calling a political party shit for its shitty behavior.
More or less. Just take few statements to the extreme, as left does and we are on same table. Again, that's the morality problem. From my perspective there is no magnitude to it, only principle of doing something or not doing, so I see it slightly in different light. Murder in self defense is still murder, just like in premeditated murder there is a loss of life. Punishment however is a different case and it's magnitude will vary depending on who you ask. Accepted degrees are a collective result of those magnitudes, different in different places.
That's my point. Historically, even if white people did some shitty things (I'm now gonna pull a you and just say "European" to be all-encompassing.), the ancestors and a lot of current-day persons from the white race have made every effort to accommodate and make right. Sure, it's X-decades/millennia late, but that's aside the point. It happened. We acknowledge it. We now want to make sure a) those actions are never repeated, and b) that the current and future generations aren't meant to suffer for it.
Assuming I am from europe, then again, I said such, so let's roll with it.
Yeah, that's learning from mistake of others, something that in irony, we don't do as much. But I agree, we can't blame someone for what their ancestors did... But, if they are ones doing it, they are to blame. If it's a community size problem, we could be fair and try dealing with few bad apples. It costs money, but fine since it does make us feel better for doing something morally good. Reality is, that doesn't always work if source of problem isn't fixed. If the source is majority of community it probably won't be fixable in current, previous and next generation. Hopefully, next one will be better, if not there is another one and next one and so on, unless it's either fixed or society is lost, either way it's a win since resources can be seizes as there is no owner. Though, keep in mind I am talking from most efficient option, doesn't mean it's good and even can be done by us humans since we posses conscience.
Now, compare that to Africa and the ME where whites and Christians are heavily persecuted, enslaved, etc. They have no moral scruples on upending all the good will they've been granted despite allowances and excessive tolerance. Oh, but y'know, entitled white kids and persons in the media won't hesitate to blame whitey anyways cause some real dark shit happened several years ago. You also can't "quarantine" bad behavior. Putting aside the moral issues associated, it's a matter of acknowledging the root issue. You either strike the foundation, cripple the behavior and persons pushing it, or don't bother and let everyone else suffer.
I was thinking more in a world scale, because you can quarantine a country to a high degree. Like a giant prison cell. We are assuming a root of the issue can be fixed, sometimes it can't and it's better to remove bad apple than trying to fix it. That also doesn't fully work with us humans as it is problematic.
You don't win a fight by blocking every punch.
True. You counterattack. It's easier to be on defensive than offensive. Though, there is a difference in being fancy about it or effective. Most of the time we decide to go for fancy... or morally good.
Sure. and when people who win nothing achieve power, they can rewrite whatever they want, right?
Not exactly what I had in mind. Winners can write history however they want, who is going to oppose them? Though, doing that while not being a winner is pretty dumb and that's what I had in mind.
I have to go in 2 minutes, but I want to address this last part. The main difference is that the right was passive-aggressive, yes. The left started swinging, and in defense, the right swung back. The main issue isn't a case of self-defense vs incitement of violence, but more how the persons tasked with recording and presenting the situation choose to frame it. It's a blatant inequality, telling people those "dastardly nazi's"-of which there aren't a ton in the media- are attacking Antifa and lefites. That's blatantly false, but a decreasing majority don't see or hear that side. They have to actively search for even-sided narratives, of which there are very few, if any.

The main issue isn't a lack of reasonable people, but a lack of fairness and equality being trumpeted around as the utmost fairness and equality. Hypocrisy is the defense of those who are aware they are hurting others and wanting to get away with it.
That's the protection I mentioned. If you know there won't be any punishment for your acts... Who is going to stop you? That's why people need principles, because there is always one person able to stop you - you yourself. However, upholding principles and living with them requires a strong person, thus why we need laws, majority aren't strong.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
That's actually upholding my argument that morality will be different in different group. Have you considered, that people throwing baseless accusations could be fully certain that what they are doing is the good thing? Not saying it needs to be, but that's how ideologies work. You will see that often in a lot of sects, there doesn't need to be a reason or logic, as long as belief is there. That's morality for you, different in different places. Generally, any group that achieves power status, will get corrupted and a lot of times other groups will either try to join or attack to steal same status. That's why there is no good side to choose from as long as it's based on belief.
Tite Kubo had a good quote in his manga, Bleach, for just such an occasion.

"War is the result of both sides believing they're right."

It's an inevitability that we're seeing an accelerated clock on the next world war, and Trump is just the guy to fire the first shot. Hell, he's probably fully aware and is trying to delay it until either he can get out of the line of fire, or until a time when his deeds grant him the privilege of prolonged power. Who knows. I will say that it won't be a repeat of the last time, but a full-blown "us vs them" of various factions simply being fed up with each other. Tribalism is the greatest motivator for going to war.

However, to agree with your point, as there is now proven ground to it: Yes, morality of emotion didn't work and is a failed method. But... it's easier for men to not act like men, while women are used to it due to thousands of years of evolution.
It's easier when a vet says there is nothing that can be done to save your dog rather than being put in a choice that will be harsh emotionally or harsh financially and you can't afford it.
I feel insincere only quoting the part I want to directly respond to, but there it is. So, no, it's not easier to lose a beloved pet for financial reasons. At least, for those who have bonded with their pets and truly love them. Also, gender norms are redefined based on the advancement of society, or, at the very least, given looser definitions. Again, Rome.

Hahaha, pretty much.
And rarely those kind of people want to lead or be in charge, because they know how corrupted one can get. Shit covered in gold is still shit.
Not necessarily about corruption so much as it is not wanting the responsibilities attached to leadership. Most people assume a bad government is born from personal failings and, to a degree, it is. You and I have beat down Slicer's idiocy about this, though, in pointing out that a contented society with no motivation to watchdog their government will inevitably be lead by an ultimately self-serving and greedy governing body. "Natural-born" leaders don't exist. Everyone is a sheep until someone decides there needs to be order and reluctantly assumes the role. People who are too ambitious and self-serving inevitably corrupt the position because they're not being taught any better. Man, Rome sure is rearing it's old head, isn't it?

Yeah, that's learning from mistake of others, something that in irony, we don't do as much. But I agree, we can't blame someone for what their ancestors did... But, if they are ones doing it, they are to blame. If it's a community size problem, we could be fair and try dealing with few bad apples. It costs money, but fine since it does make us feel better for doing something morally good. Reality is, that doesn't always work if source of problem isn't fixed. If the source is majority of community it probably won't be fixable in current, previous and next generation. Hopefully, next one will be better, if not there is another one and next one and so on, unless it's either fixed or society is lost, either way it's a win since resources can be seizes as there is no owner. Though, keep in mind I am talking from most efficient option, doesn't mean it's good and even can be done by us humans since we posses conscience.
Most people don't understand that, at the most basic level, Humans are still a tribal species. Having a "refined morality" about things like race, social status, etc doesn't just happen; it's taught. People are shitty, but not because they're inherently evil or anything like that. They're shitty because that is the nature of all of us. You can't commit resources to trying to fix the nature of the species simply because a community is exclusionary. The most you can do is try and encourage that community to open up and, failing that, just build a new one elsewhere. Whether that community inevitably opens up or continues as they are, you can't just hand them a bag of money and expect them to change. We are a species motivated by self-preservation and the need to propagate, even at the expense of other tribes of our species.

I was thinking more in a world scale, because you can quarantine a country to a high degree. Like a giant prison cell. We are assuming a root of the issue can be fixed, sometimes it can't and it's better to remove bad apple than trying to fix it. That also doesn't fully work with us humans as it is problematic.
The issue is, unless you pull out the tree by the roots, it will inevitably grow back. Nature has shown what you don't kill completely, it will come back. A quarantine doesn't work, either. There is a saying about a beast becoming more dangerous when you corner it. Humans have the advantage/disadvantage of being not just intelligent, but horribly dangerous when pushed.

True. You counterattack. It's easier to be on defensive than offensive. Though, there is a difference in being fancy about it or effective. Most of the time we decide to go for fancy... or morally good.
Fancy fighters get their asses kicked more often than not because they want to put on a spectacle rather than actually protect themselves. CM Punk is an example of a spectacle fighter trying to fight actual fighters. He failed twice. The first time, he simply got shit-stomped in 3.4 seconds. The second time, he was toyed with.

Fights don't have morals. People will fight because they believe in something or to protect themselves, but never as a moral choice. Fights are the baser instincts kicking in. Like our tribal nature, the instinct of fight or flight doesn't care about your morality. Again, "make Humans suffer, and they become beasts."

Not exactly what I had in mind. Winners can write history however they want, who is going to oppose them? Though, doing that while not being a winner is pretty dumb and that's what I had in mind.
Fair enough.

That's the protection I mentioned. If you know there won't be any punishment for your acts... Who is going to stop you? That's why people need principles, because there is always one person able to stop you - you yourself. However, upholding principles and living with them requires a strong person, thus why we need laws, majority aren't strong.

Now, for some levity...

Putting that aside, you're right, and you're wrong. Protecting the weak is fine as long it doesn't become a dependency. When the weak are taught to rely on others for help, they lose their independence and become wholly incapable of helping themselves. Inevitably telling someone they must fight their own battles isn't unkind or amoral. People are strongest when made to care for themselves. Just the same, a child can't exactly fight the next Hitler or Osama Bin Laden on their own, and I hope it never comes to that. Protecting the weak until they are able is a form of tribalism. You look after your weakest members until they can look after themselves. If they fail that, then they are cast out.

Where these armchair "moralists" fail to recognize is that 1) an antagonizing tribe will never be compatible with the tribe of the west, 2) our weakest members need not be tolerated or coddled, and 3) in trying to drive the strong to extinction, you're only causing them to reject you. Tribalism isn't solely a matter of being "racist", but as much about what is our nature and identity as individual members of a species. That said, racism is as much learned as tolerance is. You don't resist your tribal nature by being reminded of it constantly, but by living in ignorance of it.
 
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
Tite Kubo had a good quote in his manga, Bleach, for just such an occasion.

"War is the result of both sides believing they're right."

It's an inevitability that we're seeing an accelerated clock on the next world war, and Trump is just the guy to fire the first shot. Hell, he's probably fully aware and is trying to delay it until either he can get out of the line of fire, or until a time when his deeds grant him the privilege of prolonged power. Who knows. I will say that it won't be a repeat of the last time, but a full-blown "us vs them" of various factions simply being fed up with each other. Tribalism is the greatest motivator for going to war.
To be fair, I wouldn't expect full blown war starting or taking place inside US due to all of that. However... There is a huge risk of a racial/religious war taking place in the Europe which is going to be way more horrifying than any civil one that could take place in the US. While media do their best to cover and hide actual tensions, it's not going to remove those. But yeah, it would be people vs people vs homelands minus few places around the world that do not have this issue growing and/or are too far to get hit by any "blast radius" (metaphorically). Lucky for me, I am in one of those places :p

I feel insincere only quoting the part I want to directly respond to, but there it is. So, no, it's not easier to lose a beloved pet for financial reasons. At least, for those who have bonded with their pets and truly love them. Also, gender norms are redefined based on the advancement of society, or, at the very least, given looser definitions. Again, Rome.
What I meant was, when given a choice vs when being told nothing can be done/choice been made, it is easier for one. No one wants to be put in such position. Years ago a dad had to take little Rover infected with rabies behind the barn with a gun and do the job, taking it on his shoulders to do something very emotionally taxing. But a man has to do what a man has to do. Today it's the job of the vet, so it's less taxing and many wouldn't have the same amount of fortitude to help little Rover end his misery. Okay, I have no idea which type of Rome reference you are making here, there are few, you know? :p
Not necessarily about corruption so much as it is not wanting the responsibilities attached to leadership. Most people assume a bad government is born from personal failings and, to a degree, it is. You and I have beat down Slicer's idiocy about this, though, in pointing out that a contented society with no motivation to watchdog their government will inevitably be lead by an ultimately self-serving and greedy governing body. "Natural-born" leaders don't exist. Everyone is a sheep until someone decides there needs to be order and reluctantly assumes the role. People who are too ambitious and self-serving inevitably corrupt the position because they're not being taught any better. Man, Rome sure is rearing it's old head, isn't it?
I wouldn't agree, natural born leader is a thing. We are pack animals, we do search for one, we always have one, that's how it is. Role of a leader is hard and requires a lot of mental strength, be it in group of friends, school, job or other instances. Even being the head of the family is one. Being a one to call the shots is hard, everything is on your shoulders, questions of what's good and what's not are on you. I wouldn't say natural born leaders are a sheep, they do act differently, they are different and they never seek the role because they know what to expect. They either assume the role out of necessity or when people point them out, it's like a social punishment honestly. But as with everything, there is other side to that, people who do seek that fame and control, those are weak men that listen only to greed. Unfortunately, what society has been doing is letting them get what they want...
Most people don't understand that, at the most basic level, Humans are still a tribal species. Having a "refined morality" about things like race, social status, etc doesn't just happen; it's taught. People are shitty, but not because they're inherently evil or anything like that. They're shitty because that is the nature of all of us. You can't commit resources to trying to fix the nature of the species simply because a community is exclusionary. The most you can do is try and encourage that community to open up and, failing that, just build a new one elsewhere. Whether that community inevitably opens up or continues as they are, you can't just hand them a bag of money and expect them to change. We are a species motivated by self-preservation and the need to propagate, even at the expense of other tribes of our species.
Pretty much, this is where my harsh examples of doing things come from. They are based on community needing to fix itself or be left to die out. For an example that comes more from reality (oh boy, now you wait for someone to call me a homophobic), while sexual freedom does seem nice in concept, it created tons of societal problems. Not that long ago, many men taking a bath was just a normal thing, today many would wonder if that act is gay, afraid it could be. Same gender couples can't have kids, which adds to birth issues and such pair adopting children will with high probability rise a person that won't have a kid as well due to their sexuality. At some point it creates economical issues, because there are too many old people and not enough younger workers. While it's not something that will end the human race, it does lower standards and does have impact. Other way it's also as bad, nowadays kids often are raised by schools, not their mothers with a father being masculine figure having last words... That creates emotionally unstable people that can't handle anything and very often tend to have sexual deviations that are only adding to the problem. Now, in terms of same sex pairs, it's an issue that will literally die out and fix itself, families are another side of the coin, because of their own problems they add to the first one, so that cycle is not broken and it constantly spins. At some point we may end with society that will have high ratio of depressed and tired people before they even reach age of 25... Which is taking place right now.
It is a very controversial topic and many won't listen, because they feel it's a wrong think to talk about this. Just you wait for some moron to use this text above as an argument for whatever different argument I will have in the future. Just you wait :p
The issue is, unless you pull out the tree by the roots, it will inevitably grow back. Nature has shown what you don't kill completely, it will come back. A quarantine doesn't work, either. There is a saying about a beast becoming more dangerous when you corner it. Humans have the advantage/disadvantage of being not just intelligent, but horribly dangerous when pushed.
Oh yeah, they do, but you are assuming if a country is quarantined it will bite rest of the world that did it to them... Not especially for next generations. When you are born in status quo, you do not posses knowledge of how it was and stories do not do justice for those. That's the chance-point where a society can do a turn. But yeah, a problem will come back at some point, it's inevitable and there isn't a permanent fix. It's the case of how long current bandage will last.
Fancy fighters get their asses kicked more often than not because they want to put on a spectacle rather than actually protect themselves. CM Punk is an example of a spectacle fighter trying to fight actual fighters. He failed twice. The first time, he simply got shit-stomped in 3.4 seconds. The second time, he was toyed with.
No clue who that is, but yeah, pretty much that.
Fights don't have morals. People will fight because they believe in something or to protect themselves, but never as a moral choice. Fights are the baser instincts kicking in. Like our tribal nature, the instinct of fight or flight doesn't care about your morality. Again, "make Humans suffer, and they become beasts."
Not always, not always. You can easily see tons of fights that do not protect anything but are for establishing dominance or showing a strength difference. Humans just like rest of animals do it too. It's simply wiser to not do it as there is no need for such in our society. People that had enough brawl during their young age tend to not bother with that while ones that were bullied or never had hardships/never been in a fight are more likely to try one due to unfulfilled desires of younger age. However, it ends in predictable way - a loss, which demoralizes them further and actually inflicts mental damage.
Putting that aside, you're right, and you're wrong. Protecting the weak is fine as long it doesn't become a dependency. When the weak are taught to rely on others for help, they lose their independence and become wholly incapable of helping themselves. Inevitably telling someone they must fight their own battles isn't unkind or amoral. People are strongest when made to care for themselves. Just the same, a child can't exactly fight the next Hitler or Osama Bin Laden on their own, and I hope it never comes to that. Protecting the weak until they are able is a form of tribalism. You look after your weakest members until they can look after themselves. If they fail that, then they are cast out.
Depends on priority. First comes family, then you and your friends, then your country... And if you still have fucks to give, maybe rest of the world. Protecting own family always comes first... but what will happen when one does not have a family of his own? Need of protecting is still there and it gets corrupted turning into whatever we see nowadays.
Where these armchair "moralists" fail to recognize is that 1) an antagonizing tribe will never be compatible with the tribe of the west, 2) our weakest members need not be tolerated or coddled, and 3) in trying to drive the strong to extinction, you're only causing them to reject you. Tribalism isn't solely a matter of being "racist", but as much about what is our nature and identity as individual members of a species. That said, racism is as much learned as tolerance is. You don't resist your tribal nature by being reminded of it constantly, but by living in ignorance of it.
Yup.
I will put it in simpler words: When someone who knew only his room for his whole life is put in position of power, he will only cause problems as he doesn't know.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
To be fair, I wouldn't expect full blown war starting or taking place inside US due to all of that. However... There is a huge risk of a racial/religious war taking place in the Europe which is going to be way more horrifying than any civil one that could take place in the US. While media do their best to cover and hide actual tensions, it's not going to remove those. But yeah, it would be people vs people vs homelands minus few places around the world that do not have this issue growing and/or are too far to get hit by any "blast radius" (metaphorically). Lucky for me, I am in one of those places :p
I just woke up. Hold my beer.

So, anyways, I can't really add to this, except I wouldn't assume it's going to be limited to the western theater. Trump only made peace for the US and North Korea. That said, Kim Jong Un hasn't been making noise lately, so you might be safe. Might.


What I meant was, when given a choice vs when being told nothing can be done/choice been made, it is easier for one. No one wants to be put in such position. Years ago a dad had to take little Rover infected with rabies behind the barn with a gun and do the job, taking it on his shoulders to do something very emotionally taxing. But a man has to do what a man has to do. Today it's the job of the vet, so it's less taxing and many wouldn't have the same amount of fortitude to help little Rover end his misery. Okay, I have no idea which type of Rome reference you are making here, there are few, you know? :p
Rome famously had loose definitions of sexuality, among other things. Also, yeah, the upside with animals (at least, in rural settings) is the ability to dodge criticism/lawyers by taking them behind the shed. That, and they'll likely go somewhere to die away from the family.


I wouldn't agree, natural born leader is a thing. We are pack animals, we do search for one, we always have one, that's how it is. Role of a leader is hard and requires a lot of mental strength, be it in group of friends, school, job or other instances. Even being the head of the family is one. Being a one to call the shots is hard, everything is on your shoulders, questions of what's good and what's not are on you. I wouldn't say natural born leaders are a sheep, they do act differently, they are different and they never seek the role because they know what to expect. They either assume the role out of necessity or when people point them out, it's like a social punishment honestly. But as with everything, there is other side to that, people who do seek that fame and control, those are weak men that listen only to greed. Unfortunately, what society has been doing is letting them get what they want...
What you're alluding to is the pack mentality. Yeah, Humans possess it. Not as obviously as say, wolves or lions, but it's there. We're more like sheep or antelope, though, in that we'll follow the guy who has the best ideas, but generally prefer sticking close together and making decisions based on mass approval. Hell, our most successful political systems reflect that nature. Democracy and its variants show that we're susceptible to external influence and/or internal biases. If Jim-Bob the Racist wants to be president and a majority like his politics, he'll win.

As for "natural-born" leaders being a thing, I'll still contest this. People who want to be in charge aren't built that way so much as they've been positioned throughout their life to hold a position of authority, however far-reaching that might be. Heck, there are some leaders who can't even and manage to hold power because people think they possess the qualities to lead despite them expressing-and at times, showing-the contrary.

People who seek power see what Humans are wired to: an opportunity. Einstein saw the opportunity to change our understanding of the universe. Kennedy saw the opportunity to change our perception of Communist Russia. Bush Jr saw an opportunity to establish a foothold in an oil-wealthy nation and make more money for after he retires. Opportunists make good leaders in some cases, shitty ones in others. It depends if they empathize with those they are set to govern, or seek to position themselves better. Hence, "no man is a natural-born leader." Those men are simply better at seeing an opportunity than others.

Pretty much, this is where my harsh examples of doing things come from. They are based on community needing to fix itself or be left to die out. For an example that comes more from reality (oh boy, now you wait for someone to call me a homophobic), while sexual freedom does seem nice in concept, it created tons of societal problems. Not that long ago, many men taking a bath was just a normal thing, today many would wonder if that act is gay, afraid it could be. Same gender couples can't have kids, which adds to birth issues and such pair adopting children will with high probability rise a person that won't have a kid as well due to their sexuality. At some point it creates economical issues, because there are too many old people and not enough younger workers. While it's not something that will end the human race, it does lower standards and does have impact. Other way it's also as bad, nowadays kids often are raised by schools, not their mothers with a father being masculine figure having last words... That creates emotionally unstable people that can't handle anything and very often tend to have sexual deviations that are only adding to the problem. Now, in terms of same sex pairs, it's an issue that will literally die out and fix itself, families are another side of the coin, because of their own problems they add to the first one, so that cycle is not broken and it constantly spins. At some point we may end with society that will have high ratio of depressed and tired people before they even reach age of 25... Which is taking place right now.
Again, Rome famously normalized unrestricted sexual expression, among other things. It eventually fell and left thousands of years' worth of discoveries, concepts, etc. What didn't survive in large quantities were their more... risque ideas. Sure, we saw it spread in various forms throughout the world, but it seldom culminated in a mass to affect an entire empire (until recently, mind). You're right that sexual freedom acted as a detriment to the societies it was permitted. Issue is, unfortunately, you inevitably fall into that trap not from lack of wanting to keep society functioning, but because the society becomes "walled-off" to the larger global issues and instead focuses (and exaggerates) its own small, wholly irrelevant issues.

We're already witnessing a terrifying rise in dementia in the west, and depression sure as shit hasn't been falling off lately. Suicide rates in men (white ones, specifically) are only increasing, while the normalization of mental illness is only further exaggerating the multitude of issues already existing in society. Nobody wants to admit this, though. That would mean admitting a lot of the social policies put forward in the last, say, 15-20 years have been utter trainwrecks and a drain on the system. Imagine being the fucker given that role.

Also, hold my beer.

Transsexualism is a mental disorder called Body Dysphoria. Transsexuals have a mental illness.:whistle:


Oh yeah, they do, but you are assuming if a country is quarantined it will bite rest of the world that did it to them... Not especially for next generations. When you are born in status quo, you do not posses knowledge of how it was and stories do not do justice for those. That's the chance-point where a society can do a turn. But yeah, a problem will come back at some point, it's inevitable and there isn't a permanent fix. It's the case of how long current bandage will last.
There's a reason the Hunger Games and Divergence series' were popular from the start (and dropped off as they dragged). People will inevitably want to "see more" and become frustrated by the lack of access they have to the rest of the world. Eventually, those feelings will spread, and you'll have an opportunist stand up and say "yeah, fuck those guys stopping us from going outside! Let's wreck this place, and then wreck their place!" Like I said, leadership is simply an opportunity. If you lock the door on someone, they'll break the window.

Not always, not always. You can easily see tons of fights that do not protect anything but are for establishing dominance or showing a strength difference. Humans just like rest of animals do it too. It's simply wiser to not do it as there is no need for such in our society. People that had enough brawl during their young age tend to not bother with that while ones that were bullied or never had hardships/never been in a fight are more likely to try one due to unfulfilled desires of younger age. However, it ends in predictable way - a loss, which demoralizes them further and actually inflicts mental damage.
Again, never a morality thing. A fight is instinctual. And we fight in modern society all the time. It would be hilarious, the amount of fighting we as a species do. Hell, white people probably picked the most fights historically. I even have an image for this.

Screenshot_1.png

People who fight a ton in their youth and no longer do in adulthood have simply spent that pent-up nature and no longer have the cause or desire for it. When you obsessively do something, you eventually lose interest in it. I play Magic: the Gathering, but don't spend every hour of every day playing. If I did, I wouldn't want to play it anymore. Just as well, I did fight a ton in school, so I have the memories of how to punch or snap an arm, but won't without good cause. Protect myself when walking away isn't an option.

Depends on priority. First comes family, then you and your friends, then your country... And if you still have fucks to give, maybe rest of the world. Protecting own family always comes first... but what will happen when one does not have a family of his own? Need of protecting is still there and it gets corrupted turning into whatever we see nowadays.
First comes propagation, then comes the herd, then comes the greater species. Hello, nature, I've come to talk with you again.

Yup.
I will put it in simpler words: When someone who knew only his room for his whole life is put in position of power, he will only cause problems as he doesn't know.
Yup. He'll cause issues because he doesn't know any better. You put a baby in the jungle and it survives to adulthood, its ideas of morality and protecting the species will be skewed because it doesn't know what a Human is.
 
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
I just woke up. Hold my beer.

So, anyways, I can't really add to this, except I wouldn't assume it's going to be limited to the western theater. Trump only made peace for the US and North Korea. That said, Kim Jong Un hasn't been making noise lately, so you might be safe. Might.
That fat faggot won't do shit. At the moment he hits something (probably by mistake) China will disavow him and then it's the matter who gets there first: Chinese or Uncle Sam.
Rome famously had loose definitions of sexuality, among other things. Also, yeah, the upside with animals (at least, in rural settings) is the ability to dodge criticism/lawyers by taking them behind the shed. That, and they'll likely go somewhere to die away from the family.
Oh, this one. Now it makes way more sense xD
Though, have you ever realized that mostly in depiction of such event, it's the perspective of the kid, never the father. There is a good reason for it.
What you're alluding to is the pack mentality. Yeah, Humans possess it. Not as obviously as say, wolves or lions, but it's there. We're more like sheep or antelope, though, in that we'll follow the guy who has the best ideas, but generally prefer sticking close together and making decisions based on mass approval. Hell, our most successful political systems reflect that nature. Democracy and its variants show that we're susceptible to external influence and/or internal biases. If Jim-Bob the Racist wants to be president and a majority like his politics, he'll win.
Not as obvious? Go to any stadium when it's full and start screaming "bomb" or something and then start running. People will follow without thinking, so it's not always true that they follow the best person xD
But yeah, basically what I was talking about. A leader is easily spotted in a group as long as he/she speaks. In terms of "internal" biases I would recommend taking a look into cognitive bias, it does explain very well many ways people act and how no one is actually in full control of themselves plus how it is impossible for a person to be unbiased.
As for "natural-born" leaders being a thing, I'll still contest this. People who want to be in charge aren't built that way so much as they've been positioned throughout their life to hold a position of authority, however far-reaching that might be. Heck, there are some leaders who can't even and manage to hold power because people think they possess the qualities to lead despite them expressing-and at times, showing-the contrary.
Kinda semantics... but I agree you can create a leader type person. However, we do have specified natural born leaders, it comes from sociotypes thanks to Jung. I can't exactly remember, but their amount in population is around 1-2%. As harsh as it will sound, some people are simply better than others because they were born that way. However... from personal experience and analysis, ENTJ sociotype tends to be in group of most cruel and inhumane of them all while at the same time, often most righteous.
People who seek power see what Humans are wired to: an opportunity. Einstein saw the opportunity to change our understanding of the universe. Kennedy saw the opportunity to change our perception of Communist Russia. Bush Jr saw an opportunity to establish a foothold in an oil-wealthy nation and make more money for after he retires. Opportunists make good leaders in some cases, shitty ones in others. It depends if they empathize with those they are set to govern, or seek to position themselves better. Hence, "no man is a natural-born leader." Those men are simply better at seeing an opportunity than others.
Well, I do see your reasoning, but research and data backs the idea of someone being literally wired to be a born leader. I know it kicks in the ass idea of people being free and able to achieve if they try hard enough, but some simply weren't born with needed tools. Einstein was pushed by curiosity, Kennedy by peace, Bush Jr by income... Sure, all of them got the opportunity, but it's never a single case. All of mentioned people were special in a way, be it by anatomy or family ties.
Natural born leaders take people with them, they never fight to gain support, though they always see a value in ones that followed them and do care. Generally, whenever you stumble across that type, you go after them, that's how you are wired. Either leading or following.
Again, Rome famously normalized unrestricted sexual expression, among other things. It eventually fell and left thousands of years' worth of discoveries, concepts, etc. What didn't survive in large quantities were their more... risque ideas. Sure, we saw it spread in various forms throughout the world, but it seldom culminated in a mass to affect an entire empire (until recently, mind). You're right that sexual freedom acted as a detriment to the societies it was permitted. Issue is, unfortunately, you inevitably fall into that trap not from lack of wanting to keep society functioning, but because the society becomes "walled-off" to the larger global issues and instead focuses (and exaggerates) its own small, wholly irrelevant issues.
When life is good, people are forced to search for problems. It's existential problem. That's why ideologies without end goal are dangerous because there are no breaks. That's also why progressive ideas are getting out of hand.
We're already witnessing a terrifying rise in dementia in the west, and depression sure as shit hasn't been falling off lately. Suicide rates in men (white ones, specifically) are only increasing, while the normalization of mental illness is only further exaggerating the multitude of issues already existing in society. Nobody wants to admit this, though. That would mean admitting a lot of the social policies put forward in the last, say, 15-20 years have been utter trainwrecks and a drain on the system. Imagine being the fucker given that role.
Downfall started around 70 years ago. But yeah, you guys have a problem out there. That's why I am glad for being born where traditional values are uphold, so we can watch from safety xD
Also, hold my beer.

Transsexualism is a mental disorder called Body Dysphoria. Transsexuals have a mental illness.:whistle:
Every abbreviation outside of norm is a disorder, guess how many things fall into that? :p
Though, keep in mind there is a huge difference in people with actual disorder, and dumb teenagers/young adults trying to follow the trend. I would say latter is way larger than first one. Hard slap across the face solved worse problems.
There's a reason the Hunger Games and Divergence series' were popular from the start (and dropped off as they dragged). People will inevitably want to "see more" and become frustrated by the lack of access they have to the rest of the world. Eventually, those feelings will spread, and you'll have an opportunist stand up and say "yeah, fuck those guys stopping us from going outside! Let's wreck this place, and then wreck their place!" Like I said, leadership is simply an opportunity. If you lock the door on someone, they'll break the window.
Haven't seen any of that. Also, what you are describing sounds more like conditioning. It's a thing that we do to population to get them used to things before those take place so effects aren't as drastic. Conditioning doesn't need to be done intentionally, but it does take place. If we developed a thinking robot right now, everyone would be in ave and with good hopes. If that robot went insane and decided to attack humans, it still wouldn't be as drastic as we are already used to this topic. Thus, machines on the battlefield killing humans will be in bad taste, but will follow some expectations about future.
Again, never a morality thing. A fight is instinctual. And we fight in modern society all the time. It would be hilarious, the amount of fighting we as a species do. Hell, white people probably picked the most fights historically. I even have an image for this.


People who fight a ton in their youth and no longer do in adulthood have simply spent that pent-up nature and no longer have the cause or desire for it. When you obsessively do something, you eventually lose interest in it. I play Magic: the Gathering, but don't spend every hour of every day playing. If I did, I wouldn't want to play it anymore. Just as well, I did fight a ton in school, so I have the memories of how to punch or snap an arm, but won't without good cause. Protect myself when walking away isn't an option.
Correct, we europeans... well, at least ones that still kept their balls (I liked your Kim Jong Un safety joke, so to not confuse, not everyone stays in their country of origin :p) do not fuck around. And while traveling here and there, I saw many examples of men being afraid to take a stance. It's really weird when you take a jab, expecting one back but... you don't see one, only confusion of what just happened and while back at home I have seen even weak men taking a stance, because a man has his pride and while is some shame in defeat, it should be a key point for growing to not shame yourself again. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger, is what you will hear from where I came.
First comes propagation, then comes the herd, then comes the greater species. Hello, nature, I've come to talk with you again.
Yup. He'll cause issues because he doesn't know any better. You put a baby in the jungle and it survives to adulthood, its ideas of morality and protecting the species will be skewed because it doesn't know what a Human is.
Knowledge is power. Fortitude controls power. If you lack any of two, there is a lack of balance.
 

XSI

Lurker
Nov 10, 2008
2,242
83
Brazilian elections anyone?

So to recap:
-previous favorite candidate was in jail for corruption
-Brazil decided to void his candidature
-Far right candidate get stabbed and suddenly become new favorite

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45780176
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1018025/Brazil-election-Jair-Bolsonaro-stabbing-sao-paulo

I've tried to figure out more on Brazil's elections, but never managed because it seems only Brazilians talk about it, and only in their language so I can't understand a thing about what they say
All I could really figure out is that the guy is anti-establishment and the establishment basically all joined together against him
 
Last edited:
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
Though, have you ever realized that mostly in depiction of such event, it's the perspective of the kid, never the father. There is a good reason for it.
Marketability, among other things.

But yeah, basically what I was talking about. A leader is easily spotted in a group as long as he/she speaks. In terms of "internal" biases I would recommend taking a look into cognitive bias, it does explain very well many ways people act and how no one is actually in full control of themselves plus how it is impossible for a person to be unbiased.
I'm aware of cognitive bias. I'm also aware of total objectivity being impossible. TRIBALISM. I've only been espousing it for the past 3 or so replies. lol

Kinda semantics... but I agree you can create a leader type person. However, we do have specified natural born leaders, it comes from sociotypes thanks to Jung. I can't exactly remember, but their amount in population is around 1-2%. As harsh as it will sound, some people are simply better than others because they were born that way. However... from personal experience and analysis, ENTJ sociotype tends to be in group of most cruel and inhumane of them all while at the same time, often most righteous.
I'm not offended by you stating that no man is equal. No man has ever been equal, and even the Christian bible establishes this, though your non-denoms and other "feel good" religious types will disregard that bit of text. Hell, the Jews have it written that they are better than the plebs aka non-Jews. The more extreme version of this is in Islam.

I always found those psychology-based labels of ENTJ and such to be just another bullshit attempt by useless people in useles professions to categorize people because variety and individual inequalities and similarities are easier to pussy-foot around if you make someone feel like they're part of a special group rather than outright telling them they're not special and their feelings aren't special. People have the potential to do certain things. Some excel at it better than others.

Well, I do see your reasoning, but research and data backs the idea of someone being literally wired to be a born leader. I know it kicks in the ass idea of people being free and able to achieve if they try hard enough, but some simply weren't born with needed tools. Einstein was pushed by curiosity, Kennedy by peace, Bush Jr by income... Sure, all of them got the opportunity, but it's never a single case. All of mentioned people were special in a way, be it by anatomy or family ties.
Which is still my point. People are wired to be better at some things than others. Some face exclusive limitations not from community or environment, but as a matter simply being limited in that way. I don't think I could buy into any research or "study" which pigeon-holes people into roles. That smacks too much of "we can classify people and categorize them based on these psychological markers. One more step towards engineering the perfect Human!" Hell, Megaman X tackled this subject. A chick who built robots as a child (I know, stick with me) tried to duplicate the perfect leader named "X" foregoing the 100+ years of education on morality he underwent. What happened was the robot copy becoming a malevolent dictator with no moral scruples.

Basically, you can't give birth to a leader. That's dumb. Any study which indicates people are born morally and mentally capable of filling a certain role is pissing in the wind. People learn how to take those roles. Only certain people ever have the willingness and ambition to take those roles, and that comes down to their own personality rather than an existing condition.

When life is good, people are forced to search for problems. It's existential problem. That's why ideologies without end goal are dangerous because there are no breaks. That's also why progressive ideas are getting out of hand.
No, and no. Sort of. People will still work and struggle when life is good. Progressive ideologies unfortunately forgo the benefit of suffering in favor of trying to make the world a happy place. In Christianity, the bible says we were provided for until we listened to a snake. If it was within our capacity to build Eden, we would have. We can, though, because we only understand a life where suffering is as inevitable as death. Putting aside the theological bias for a moment, we have to consider that the species as a whole functions best when it is forced to suffer. Through suffering and hardship, we push our own limits both technologically and socially to a breaking point, wreck it, and then build from the debris a better thing.

Progressives would see the "suffering" and "hardship" remedied through policy and short-term benefits. People get contented when you provide for them and don't ask much (if anything) in return. Contrast that with somewhere like Tibet or Soviet Russia, where hardship and suffering caused the people to oppose the authoritative oppressors until they eventually achieved the end goal. Progressives don't really get that struggling is a part of life and without it, Humans lose the value they require to sustain the species. On the flip, a majority (like, 80%) of progressives are rich white kids going to Ivy League schools. They were brought up believing that because they are provided for and face zero hardship while Tyrone had to fight and claw for his opportunities, somehow all white kids and persons of privilege are responsible for Tyrone's hardships.

Tyrone didn't fight so he could be coddled by pampered little pussies. He'd quicker slap their shit and focus on making something of himself than accept their pity and hand-outs.

Every abbreviation outside of norm is a disorder, guess how many things fall into that? :p
Though, keep in mind there is a huge difference in people with actual disorder, and dumb teenagers/young adults trying to follow the trend. I would say latter is way larger than first one. Hard slap across the face solved worse problems.
Body dysphoria is an actual thing. Only in the last decade or so has it been normalized as a sexual identity than an existing mental disorder which should be treated accordingly. As someone with an autism spectrum disorder and moderate clinical depression, I'm more pissed about the normalization of that mental illness and their constant whining and bitching about how hard life is because people don't want to deal with their shit and they've been tragically mistreated throughout history. Yeah, fuck you. Texas used to fry the mentally retarded. Back in the early 1900's, people who were considered "mentally inferior" were treated less-favorably than you sexual deviants. Hell, even today, the amount of outreach to persons with mental illnesses is hilariously inadequate compared to the women who issue fake rape claims and these so-called "oppressed minority" gays and trannies. Even the majority of homeless aren't so much the sexual deviants as they are persons with legitimate mental illnesses overlooked and abandoned by the system in favor of a bunch of whiny children faking a sexuality.

And these entitled little shits wonder why Trump won...

Haven't seen any of that. Also, what you are describing sounds more like conditioning. It's a thing that we do to population to get them used to things before those take place so effects aren't as drastic. Conditioning doesn't need to be done intentionally, but it does take place. If we developed a thinking robot right now, everyone would be in ave and with good hopes. If that robot went insane and decided to attack humans, it still wouldn't be as drastic as we are already used to this topic. Thus, machines on the battlefield killing humans will be in bad taste, but will follow some expectations about future.
People hate being told no. It's in our nature to oppose the "no" and make it a "yes". Also, People aren't as hopeful about AI and robots as you believe.

Correct, we europeans... well, at least ones that still kept their balls (I liked your Kim Jong Un safety joke, so to not confuse, not everyone stays in their country of origin :p) do not fuck around. And while traveling here and there, I saw many examples of men being afraid to take a stance. It's really weird when you take a jab, expecting one back but... you don't see one, only confusion of what just happened and while back at home I have seen even weak men taking a stance, because a man has his pride and while is some shame in defeat, it should be a key point for growing to not shame yourself again. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger, is what you will hear from where I came.
Here's the thing. People are susceptible to the herd mentality. A single man won't oppose an oppressive regime despite possessing every bit of toxicity towards it. Why fight when it's you vs the world, essentially? Hence, what you saw then, isn't so much a reflection of right now. emboldened by Trump's victory in the US Presidential election, the failure of his opposition, and even more so the recent confirmation of his SCOTUS nominee, more and more nationalists are emboldened. More and more common-folk are emboldened. Formerly progressive-oriented persons are emboldened to support the right and resist the progressive movement. Fear of being beaten down kept those same people from rising up.

Meanwhile, progressives have been losing ground and losing their minds all the while. Hence, @Pervy hates people like me and spouts assinine drivel about left-authoritarianism "winning". They're in full-blown denial mode and believe if they scream it loud enough, the rest of us "idiots" will back down and roll over for them. Hell, your issues with Patreon devs are strongly-linked to these same people. Patreon is a global platform, and we're seeing more right-aligned personalities taking it over while those who abuse it for personal gain (like scammers and "really busy" h-game devs) are losing favor. A certain dev we both know well and their whining about this forum going through a reorganization in a certain section is a reflection of that.

Hell, Star Trek has a quote for this kind of thing.[/quote]

Knowledge is power. Fortitude controls power. If you lack any of two, there is a lack of balance.
Fortitude is ones ability to endure under pressure. Knowledge is the arbitrary measure of one's ability to learn and adapt based on the demands of a situation. Neither precludes the necessity of the other, or values each other. In that same strain, someone with great fortitude isn't going to be a good leader or competent soldier by design. It only means they can go beyond through courage of self better than most. Similarly, someone with a ton of knowledge won't necessarily possess the fortitude of character to go beyond.

Both are admirable qualities, but hardly relevant without substance. I would rather follow a smart man who measures his opposition and opposes them on the right subjects than a brave man who boldly opposes all others with no care or concern for strategic positioning. You also need to recognize that, even if the stereotypes are subverted, a smart man isn't going to possess the same fortitude as someone with an average intelligence with a ton of fortitude. It's overcoming the limitations of oneself and aspiring beyond in the ways we're most comfortable with that determines he we adapt and survive. Mowgli won't ever be a scientist or civil engineer, but I'll gladly put him in charge of a wildlife conservation or on the front-lines of a war. Opposite for Jean-Luc Picard. I'll put the diplomat in a position where he'll be affecting social and political policies.

I've tried to figure out more on Brazi, but never managed because it seems only Brazilians talk about it, and only in their language so I can't understand a thing about what they say
ftfy

Seriously, Latin America is a known shit-hole, and for good reason. Hundreds of years of European colonization, fuckery, and then abandoning the place when it stopped being economically and socially viable.
 
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
Marketability, among other things.
Partially - yes. But scene wouldn't feel right if it was mother instead of father or perspective of a parent waiting for kid/teenager to do the deed.
I'm aware of cognitive bias. I'm also aware of total objectivity being impossible. TRIBALISM. I've only been espousing it for the past 3 or so replies. lol
lol indeed.
I'm not offended by you stating that no man is equal. No man has ever been equal, and even the Christian bible establishes this, though your non-denoms and other "feel good" religious types will disregard that bit of text. Hell, the Jews have it written that they are better than the plebs aka non-Jews. The more extreme version of this is in Islam.

I always found those psychology-based labels of ENTJ and such to be just another bullshit attempt by useless people in useles professions to categorize people because variety and individual inequalities and similarities are easier to pussy-foot around if you make someone feel like they're part of a special group rather than outright telling them they're not special and their feelings aren't special. People have the potential to do certain things. Some excel at it better than others.
Nah, it didn't had to do anything with making others feel better, just to sort shit out and write it down. There simply are some things you can generalize to create a group, that's basically it. Don't fall for meme that research like this is pointless, many were done way before people knew what equal rights were. Plus, being able to tie a person to a behavioral group can be really helpful, for example, in determining possible reactions and way of acting and methods to fix any mental problems individual could have. Among many other useful things ofc (social engineering being one of those).
Which is still my point. People are wired to be better at some things than others. Some face exclusive limitations not from community or environment, but as a matter simply being limited in that way. I don't think I could buy into any research or "study" which pigeon-holes people into roles. That smacks too much of "we can classify people and categorize them based on these psychological markers. One more step towards engineering the perfect Human!" Hell, Megaman X tackled this subject. A chick who built robots as a child (I know, stick with me) tried to duplicate the perfect leader named "X" foregoing the 100+ years of education on morality he underwent. What happened was the robot copy becoming a malevolent dictator with no moral scruples.

Basically, you can't give birth to a leader. That's dumb. Any study which indicates people are born morally and mentally capable of filling a certain role is pissing in the wind. People learn how to take those roles. Only certain people ever have the willingness and ambition to take those roles, and that comes down to their own personality rather than an existing condition.
You are looking at it from wrong point. Leader doesn't need to be morally capable. Long, long time ago, when humans were scribbling shitty drawings in cave's walls, there was always a leader of whole pack. To get that, he had to posses certain attributes. There was no morality involved as it wasn't existing. In terms of mental capacity, this also can be highly influenced by ones traits during birth as well as during growing period when a person learns. It's like with art. Anyone has the capacity to learn it, but only few are born with it as a talent. And it's not purely random, with enough effort, you could be breeding leaders by cherry picking, but that would be long process with huuuge error margin, especially when one generation is sometimes not enough for offspring to be born with certain traits. However... here is the thing. How much outside influence is having an effect on born-capacity and helping to develop it is not known. It may as well be that a leader developed during age 6-20 would be more efficient than a born one, could as well be other way around. Reason why we can't tell is because of research type that would need to be performed... Let's just say, we would need to throw human rights into trash to do it, so it's not going to happen.
Doesn't change the fact that yes, natural born leaders are a thing, it's basically a talent and nothing more.
No, and no. Sort of. People will still work and struggle when life is good. Progressive ideologies unfortunately forgo the benefit of suffering in favor of trying to make the world a happy place. In Christianity, the bible says we were provided for until we listened to a snake. If it was within our capacity to build Eden, we would have. We can, though, because we only understand a life where suffering is as inevitable as death. Putting aside the theological bias for a moment, we have to consider that the species as a whole functions best when it is forced to suffer. Through suffering and hardship, we push our own limits both technologically and socially to a breaking point, wreck it, and then build from the debris a better thing.
I would spin it other way. Need to avoid suffering is the pushing force to get species to function at their best. Though, suffering needs to happen first so a group is aware of it.
We kinda did that experiment with rats or other rodents, we removed all issues and struggle. It pretty much quickly killed all test subjects. However, to make a little addition to it. Humans never reached a point where life was 100% good without struggle, utopia hasn't been achieved. So it's kinda a wild guess, because we never observed case like that, so there is no data (on humans).
Progressives would see the "suffering" and "hardship" remedied through policy and short-term benefits. People get contented when you provide for them and don't ask much (if anything) in return. Contrast that with somewhere like Tibet or Soviet Russia, where hardship and suffering caused the people to oppose the authoritative oppressors until they eventually achieved the end goal. Progressives don't really get that struggling is a part of life and without it, Humans lose the value they require to sustain the species. On the flip, a majority (like, 80%) of progressives are rich white kids going to Ivy League schools. They were brought up believing that because they are provided for and face zero hardship while Tyrone had to fight and claw for his opportunities, somehow all white kids and persons of privilege are responsible for Tyrone's hardships.

Tyrone didn't fight so he could be coddled by pampered little pussies. He'd quicker slap their shit and focus on making something of himself than accept their pity and hand-outs.
We are kinda jumping around same thing, from different point of views but with same end of the string. Though, would you blame them? If majority are rich, white kids that are an example of what they are being told, of course they will accept it. In a same manner you will accept that your life is much better than some starving guy in Africa. Only difference is... You feel empathy, they are being taught guilt and that's the issue.
Body dysphoria is an actual thing. Only in the last decade or so has it been normalized as a sexual identity than an existing mental disorder which should be treated accordingly. As someone with an autism spectrum disorder and moderate clinical depression, I'm more pissed about the normalization of that mental illness and their constant whining and bitching about how hard life is because people don't want to deal with their shit and they've been tragically mistreated throughout history. Yeah, fuck you. Texas used to fry the mentally retarded. Back in the early 1900's, people who were considered "mentally inferior" were treated less-favorably than you sexual deviants. Hell, even today, the amount of outreach to persons with mental illnesses is hilariously inadequate compared to the women who issue fake rape claims and these so-called "oppressed minority" gays and trannies. Even the majority of homeless aren't so much the sexual deviants as they are persons with legitimate mental illnesses overlooked and abandoned by the system in favor of a bunch of whiny children faking a sexuality.

And these entitled little shits wonder why Trump won...
Yeah, reminds me of that fat acceptance movement. Laziness at it's best.
People hate being told no. It's in our nature to oppose the "no" and make it a "yes". Also, People aren't as hopeful about AI and robots as you believe.
Nothing that a slap to the face couldn't solve. Parents need to learn how to slap their kids. Also, that's a different problem related to AI. Not being able to tell own from machine is terrifying due to different reason. If it was sounding like a machine or somehow made clear it is a machine, there would be no issue, just more advanced Siri. Though... I do see why google "we do evil now" would do this. Would help with customer service... and also with tricking people.
Here's the thing. People are susceptible to the herd mentality. A single man won't oppose an oppressive regime despite possessing every bit of toxicity towards it. Why fight when it's you vs the world, essentially? Hence, what you saw then, isn't so much a reflection of right now. emboldened by Trump's victory in the US Presidential election, the failure of his opposition, and even more so the recent confirmation of his SCOTUS nominee, more and more nationalists are emboldened. More and more common-folk are emboldened. Formerly progressive-oriented persons are emboldened to support the right and resist the progressive movement. Fear of being beaten down kept those same people from rising up.
I will highly disagree... But this seems more of a cultural thing than anything else. Here/There it happened more than once, even in current years. It's the mentality of win or die trying. But, I would agree I do see it slowly dying... Then again, 1% is better than nothing when you are going against the world.
Meanwhile, progressives have been losing ground and losing their minds all the while. Hence, @Pervy hates people like me and spouts assinine drivel about left-authoritarianism "winning". They're in full-blown denial mode and believe if they scream it loud enough, the rest of us "idiots" will back down and roll over for them. Hell, your issues with Patreon devs are strongly-linked to these same people. Patreon is a global platform, and we're seeing more right-aligned personalities taking it over while those who abuse it for personal gain (like scammers and "really busy" h-game devs) are losing favor. A certain dev we both know well and their whining about this forum going through a reorganization in a certain section is a reflection of that.
Oi, I do not have issues with patreon devs, as it apparently stands out, it's the other way around because I am willing to say words that are correct. Truth unfortunately hurts and I tend to add few kicks to it, for shit and giggles. Well, this is what happens when you build things on lies and laziness, you have to lie more to keep up good front. I will give a little hint to some: Whenever you say - It's not about money, or something along those lines... Guess what? No one believes you, being ignored on something doesn't necessary mean your statement got accepted. That being said, my actions tend to be more fueled by trying to get a laugh, if it does something good alongside... It makes it way funnier because you can see how much it hurts from the inside. Emotional sadism is a thing unfortunately and I suffer from that disease xD
But for a second let's assume I do have an issue. You know it collides with your "Why fight when it's you vs the world, essentially?", majority of patreon devs would disagree with what I have to say, yet I will say it anyway and I don't even expect third party support. Though, again, different culture, different worldview in my wild guess. Well, assumption is over as that could sound like I am some nice guy (I am not, ya are all faggots, I just wanna laugh and do other shit).
Hell, Star Trek has a quote for this kind of thing.
Fortitude is ones ability to endure under pressure. Knowledge is the arbitrary measure of one's ability to learn and adapt based on the demands of a situation. Neither precludes the necessity of the other, or values each other. In that same strain, someone with great fortitude isn't going to be a good leader or competent soldier by design. It only means they can go beyond through courage of self better than most. Similarly, someone with a ton of knowledge won't necessarily possess the fortitude of character to go beyond.
Both are admirable qualities, but hardly relevant without substance. I would rather follow a smart man who measures his opposition and opposes them on the right subjects than a brave man who boldly opposes all others with no care or concern for strategic positioning. You also need to recognize that, even if the stereotypes are subverted, a smart man isn't going to possess the same fortitude as someone with an average intelligence with a ton of fortitude. It's overcoming the limitations of oneself and aspiring beyond in the ways we're most comfortable with that determines he we adapt and survive. Mowgli won't ever be a scientist or civil engineer, but I'll gladly put him in charge of a wildlife conservation or on the front-lines of a war. Opposite for Jean-Luc Picard. I'll put the diplomat in a position where he'll be affecting social and political policies.
ftfy
Seriously, Latin America is a known shit-hole, and for good reason. Hundreds of years of European colonization, fuckery, and then abandoning the place when it stopped being economically and socially viable.
Fuck your links, not clicking xD
Well, that's why I said balance of both is needed. Issue of how that would be achievable is a different matter. Also, it's morning here and I need to get some sleep.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
Nah, it didn't had to do anything with making others feel better, just to sort shit out and write it down. There simply are some things you can generalize to create a group, that's basically it. Don't fall for meme that research like this is pointless, many were done way before people knew what equal rights were. Plus, being able to tie a person to a behavioral group can be really helpful, for example, in determining possible reactions and way of acting and methods to fix any mental problems individual could have. Among many other useful things ofc (social engineering being one of those).
Unfortunately, categorizing people pigeon-holes them unfairly. Divergence and Hunger Games, again. When you tell people "you're a hunter" "you're a gatherer" "you're a babymaker", it reduces them to a statistic rather than a person. Fine, social engineering. Unfortunately, it's less about determining how best to approach a person's flaws on the personal level and more trying to create a "catch-all" solution wherein everyone of x group can be provided for based on their needs.

You are looking at it from wrong point. Leader doesn't need to be morally capable. Long, long time ago, when humans were scribbling shitty drawings in cave's walls, there was always a leader of whole pack. To get that, he had to posses certain attributes. There was no morality involved as it wasn't existing. In terms of mental capacity, this also can be highly influenced by ones traits during birth as well as during growing period when a person learns. It's like with art. Anyone has the capacity to learn it, but only few are born with it as a talent. And it's not purely random, with enough effort, you could be breeding leaders by cherry picking, but that would be long process with huuuge error margin, especially when one generation is sometimes not enough for offspring to be born with certain traits. However... here is the thing. How much outside influence is having an effect on born-capacity and helping to develop it is not known. It may as well be that a leader developed during age 6-20 would be more efficient than a born one, could as well be other way around. Reason why we can't tell is because of research type that would need to be performed... Let's just say, we would need to throw human rights into trash to do it, so it's not going to happen.
Doesn't change the fact that yes, natural born leaders are a thing, it's basically a talent and nothing more.
So is rolling one's "R"s and comedic timing. All talents take time and/or are the result of an environment and its influences. An example: I have a friend from Brunei. Her mother speaks in (mostly) broken English, while this friend and her brother, Canadian-born, speak fluent English. Neither of their parents can speak as fluent as they can, yet all four members of the family are close and existed in their own bubble, and have been forced to interact with an English-speaking community. Going by the logic of these so-called "studies", it should be either impossible for my friend and her brother (who is also a friend) to develop the level of fluency to the degree that their English is both unbroken and without an accent, or her parents wouldn't be as limited as they are.

My point is, your studies account for what is known and can't dive deeper than that because probability only multiplies by known factors. Talent and skills aren't "natural-born" so much as the capacity to excel is. Qualities that make one man a leader aren't going to carry over to the next generation. Eugenics only accounts for favorable traits that can be passed on genetically, e.g., hair color, eye color, skull structure, etc. Also, in some (theoretical) instances, mental illness.

I would spin it other way. Need to avoid suffering is the pushing force to get species to function at their best. Though, suffering needs to happen first so a group is aware of it.
We kinda did that experiment with rats or other rodents, we removed all issues and struggle. It pretty much quickly killed all test subjects. However, to make a little addition to it. Humans never reached a point where life was 100% good without struggle, utopia hasn't been achieved. So it's kinda a wild guess, because we never observed case like that, so there is no data (on humans).
I mean, same pie, different pieces. You say "avoid", I say "the act itself validates our existence." And rats don't understand these concepts at the same level we do. Self-awareness is an exclusive Human trait. Eat shit, lower mammals. XD

We are kinda jumping around same thing, from different point of views but with same end of the string. Though, would you blame them? If majority are rich, white kids that are an example of what they are being told, of course they will accept it. In a same manner you will accept that your life is much better than some starving guy in Africa. Only difference is... You feel empathy, they are being taught guilt and that's the issue.
I don't feel sorry for the African orphans. To specify, I don't empathize with their plight. Reason?

A people given everything, even basically provided for by white, Christian farmers and when they pushed the Christian farmers out, they still did nothing with it. I can't feel bad or reason away their suffering because it's by their own hand. When a dog continues to scratch at a sore spot, you don't pat it on the head reassuringly. Same case here. Rather than tell the Muslims and Africans that our borders are open, berating them makes more sense.

I don't empathize, but I also don't reassure a dumbass that they're just stupid because I didn't give them the answer. I berate them, like these spoiled kids should be doing. You're rich because mommy and daddy worked for it! I can't hold a full-time job, but at least I want to try.

Nothing that a slap to the face couldn't solve. Parents need to learn how to slap their kids. Also, that's a different problem related to AI. Not being able to tell own from machine is terrifying due to different reason. If it was sounding like a machine or somehow made clear it is a machine, there would be no issue, just more advanced Siri. Though... I do see why google "we do evil now" would do this. Would help with customer service... and also with tricking people.
Beating your kids used to be a valid form of punishment until the "feel good" crowd said it did more emotional damage than it has historically shown to. They do have the right idea, though, in that capital punishment isn't exactly a guaranteed method to dissuade bad behavior or improper morals.

You get why the AI issue is such a terrifying thing, too. Heck, if we were to take it a bit further, Ghost in the Shell, sir. In a Transhumanism society, the line between AI and Human is blurred to the point it's difficult to tell who is and isn't real. I agree that it's still a ways off to say that we're even close to putting brains in robot bodies, but my core point is that, when a machine can duplicate Human nuance, it becomes a question of how long until the machine becomes the man.

Well, this is what happens when you build things on lies and laziness, you have to lie more to keep up good front. I will give a little hint to some: Whenever you say - It's not about money, or something along those lines... Guess what? No one believes you, being ignored on something doesn't necessary mean your statement got accepted.
I think some devs are truly committed to finishing a project, but they have this exaggerated idea of what they can do based on the limited experience they've managed to cobble together. The ones who don't temper their expectations are the ones who get caught in the "constant delays, sorry guys" run-around trap and unfortunately, the cruelest punishment is also the right one. Someone who doesn't learn to temper themselves is as at fault as the ones who intentionally delay releases to milk the cow a bit more. The only difference is, the guys who don't temper will eventually learn how to properly manage a project and go on to be successful.

The lazier, milking devs never cared about trying to be genuine or realistic. They sell to the lowest common denominator knowing half of what they promise will neither be fulfilled, or noted as missing by their supporters. Problem with the h-games scene, especially, is that the majority of the audience are mouth-breathing retards incapable of higher functioning or doing a 5-minute google search. If you promised an NTR/monster girl/lesbian/female protag/open-world rpg in unity in the h-games section right now, I can guarantee people would ship you MILLIONS of shekels on that hollow promise alone.

I anticipate the billions of negreps from that bit of truth. People are easily hurt when faced with the truth.

But for a second let's assume I do have an issue. You know it collides with your "Why fight when it's you vs the world, essentially?", majority of patreon devs would disagree with what I have to say, yet I will say it anyway and I don't even expect third party support. Though, again, different culture, different worldview in my wild guess. Well, assumption is over as that could sound like I am some nice guy (I am not, ya are all faggots, I just wanna laugh and do other shit).
Believe me, I've fought the good fight as you are. I've learned to temper it a bit better over time not from being "beaten down", but from knowing when to pick my fights and when to say "fuck you, you're a piece of shit, and so am I." The critical part is recognizing that you're as much a piece of shit as them because how else would you know they're a piece of shit? XD

Ah, to be young, naive, and breathing through my mouth once more...

Well, that's why I said balance of both is needed. Issue of how that would be achievable is a different matter. Also, it's morning here and I need to get some sleep.
Like I said, an imperfect leader is someone who tries to balance the positive qualities into a single form. Abradolf Lincler is a joke in R&M for a reason. You can't genetically-engineer the perfect leader, or teach someone to be so good at leading that they have both the fortitude and intelligence to outshine their predecessors. Eventually, a good leader hits a block he can't overcome and stagnates. Hell, Canada had Stephen Harper for about 10-12 years, and the last three of those he was showing signs of running out of steam.

Hence, term limits. We don't need another Franklin Roosevelt or Napoleon Bonaparte serving past their prime and fucking up all the good they did.
 
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
Unfortunately, categorizing people pigeon-holes them unfairly. Divergence and Hunger Games, again. When you tell people "you're a hunter" "you're a gatherer" "you're a babymaker", it reduces them to a statistic rather than a person. Fine, social engineering. Unfortunately, it's less about determining how best to approach a person's flaws on the personal level and more trying to create a "catch-all" solution wherein everyone of x group can be provided for based on their needs.
Oh... You know, I think I understand where issue comes from. This field never deals with ultimate elements. Every tiny element of a trait is always on a scale, there is a value limit (kinda) to help categorize. To say it simpler, it is true that sharpshooters have a good aim, correct? However, it isn't true that two different sharpshooters have same exact aim. They are categorized by a certain trait, but individually they are not the same. It's something people forget that this data deals in groups and on individual basis will be always different for every single person. You can create as many psychological profiles as there are people on earth, but it's easier to categorize this way. And yes, marketing uses a lot of it, but it would not be making justice for all people with real problems that got help thanks to all of that, every coin has two sides.
So is rolling one's "R"s and comedic timing. All talents take time and/or are the result of an environment and its influences. An example: I have a friend from Brunei. Her mother speaks in (mostly) broken English, while this friend and her brother, Canadian-born, speak fluent English. Neither of their parents can speak as fluent as they can, yet all four members of the family are close and existed in their own bubble, and have been forced to interact with an English-speaking community. Going by the logic of these so-called "studies", it should be either impossible for my friend and her brother (who is also a friend) to develop the level of fluency to the degree that their English is both unbroken and without an accent, or her parents wouldn't be as limited as they are.
There are too many issues with this example. First of one, many traits of parents never manifest in their children, there are exceptions to this rule, but if you want to see that generation traits, you have to observe their grandchildren. Second of all is the age problem, ones were growing in environment, other ones got to it, probably after reaching optimum learning age. Third, we have no idea which one is multiplier for which, could be environment for talent, could be other way around, could be both could be neither. We have recorded examples of all combinations, but if we wanted to be certain, we would need to put hundreds of test subjects in isolated states for their entire life to collect that data. This experiment is not going to take place anytime soon. And to show you how easy it is... You just categorized two groups based on certain traits, English-speaking community and smaller group of their own bubble, to not categorize them in pigeon-holes and be fair, you would need to go in detailed case by case basis. But then we have further inner groups of parents and children. This is basically the same thing. You didn't do it to make them feel better, you did it because it's more convenient to describe and manage, literally doing what you just described as unfairly. While it is nice you keep human and individual aspect to things, you wouldn't be able to manage and have to do exact same thing.
Anyway, I do not expect you to accept any of this, bias can be impossible to overcome, I am simply pointing out things. When dealing with group traits, it's never a "must-be" for individual, never was, never will be. Works only for groups, but helps with analyzing individuals.
My point is, your studies account for what is known and can't dive deeper than that because probability only multiplies by known factors. Talent and skills aren't "natural-born" so much as the capacity to excel is. Qualities that make one man a leader aren't going to carry over to the next generation. Eugenics only accounts for favorable traits that can be passed on genetically, e.g., hair color, eye color, skull structure, etc. Also, in some (theoretical) instances, mental illness.
Genetics don't exactly work like that. Each time you get two sets of "code", some things can shadow other things, some elements could simply not manifest while others, dormant in few generations, could. Not to mention, mutations and other things do occur. We are talking about number of combinations that is expressed with power values otherwise it's stupidly huge number (not infinite, but stupidly big). Then we have no damn clue how much environment actually influences things when compared to traits, we know it does, we don't know how much, we don't know how much of that adaptation is moved over. We simply do not know. I can't agree on your approach as it's uses same logic that flat-earth was using centuries ago. It's based on limited observation method, while when put in proper perspective... Or when properly researched has proven to be false.
Again, I am not saying it's a dominant thing, I am saying it is a thing, there is a huge difference. We don't know more than that, we can estimate and while proven correct in 99% of cases, that one 1% will disapprove it, which would mean research methods or approach was wrong and whole experiment could be flawed and/or useless. One we would need to do is not going to happen because we can't lock people in certain environment without any other influence or in no-environment for their whole life to actually make sure. Even if we drop human rights issue, there are tons of technical issues related to this... Not even mentioning, it could as well create new environment for a person to adapt and gain a new sets of traits.
Few books could be written on this whole issue, but it's not as simple as: it's environment or it's the traits. Both exists, we do not know which affects what and how much.
Then again, earth looks flat so from observed perspective is flat (which can be easily proven wrong, but majority of people won't be able to do, thus falling for flat-earth meme).
I mean, same pie, different pieces. You say "avoid", I say "the act itself validates our existence." And rats don't understand these concepts at the same level we do. Self-awareness is an exclusive Human trait. Eat shit, lower mammals. XD
You just stumbled across a complete new topic that is as complicated as the other xD You know there are animals showing very downsized traits of self-awareness? While it's not meta self-awareness it's out there. Then again, we are measuring this by our own scale... While hard to grasp, there may be other possibilities we do not even understand could exist. I will drop it now though, as this is stupidly huge and deals with topics that often oversize ones that deal with it.
I don't feel sorry for the African orphans. To specify, I don't empathize with their plight. Reason?

A people given everything, even basically provided for by white, Christian farmers and when they pushed the Christian farmers out, they still did nothing with it. I can't feel bad or reason away their suffering because it's by their own hand. When a dog continues to scratch at a sore spot, you don't pat it on the head reassuringly. Same case here. Rather than tell the Muslims and Africans that our borders are open, berating them makes more sense.

I don't empathize, but I also don't reassure a dumbass that they're just stupid because I didn't give them the answer. I berate them, like these spoiled kids should be doing. You're rich because mommy and daddy worked for it! I can't hold a full-time job, but at least I want to try.
And this is how hard it is to deal with it. Last two paragraphs here are what we call empathy, no clue why everyone always assume it must be a positive thing... Then again, word itself has a soothing tone to it, so that could as well be a reason. Anyway, yes, by showing you understand the problem and where it comes from, which doesn't actually need to be based purely on feelings, could as well be experience, you are showing empathy. It's a one word but covers tons of instances. You don't need to feel bad for them, you don't need to want to help them, you don't need to like them... But you can still show empathy. It may be a wild guess here, but maybe you had compassion in mind?
Again, do not want to kick you around here, but there are some flaws, neither do I expect you take what I say as correct, not when it can be checked right away.
Beating your kids used to be a valid form of punishment until the "feel good" crowd said it did more emotional damage than it has historically shown to. They do have the right idea, though, in that capital punishment isn't exactly a guaranteed method to dissuade bad behavior or improper morals.
True it isn't guaranteed method. What it is expected to do is strike fear as a method of control.
You get why the AI issue is such a terrifying thing, too. Heck, if we were to take it a bit further, Ghost in the Shell, sir. In a Transhumanism society, the line between AI and Human is blurred to the point it's difficult to tell who is and isn't real. I agree that it's still a ways off to say that we're even close to putting brains in robot bodies, but my core point is that, when a machine can duplicate Human nuance, it becomes a question of how long until the machine becomes the man.
Well... I do understand why it could be terrifying but... If you want to build utopia, you need slaves, preferably ones that can think for themselves and are bounded by something (like code). That's the harsh reality... If we don't want to suffer ourselves or put any of our species through this, we need to have another species to do it for us so we can have that utopia. Since there aren't other species capable of being that, another option would be to create them. As it was said, there can't be good life without any type of suffering... No one said we have to suffer, as long as balance checks out. While it is very disgusting view in many ways, that's the only way we are aware of right now.
I think some devs are truly committed to finishing a project, but they have this exaggerated idea of what they can do based on the limited experience they've managed to cobble together. The ones who don't temper their expectations are the ones who get caught in the "constant delays, sorry guys" run-around trap and unfortunately, the cruelest punishment is also the right one. Someone who doesn't learn to temper themselves is as at fault as the ones who intentionally delay releases to milk the cow a bit more. The only difference is, the guys who don't temper will eventually learn how to properly manage a project and go on to be successful.
I would agree and add more to it. If we remove all intentional scammers and milkers, we are still left with a problem. Most of indie dev creators often don't posses needed skills to properly manage the project, they either have to learn how to do it or fail. That's with assumption we are creating a product for sale. Now, patreon is not built around that. You can create preview of product and start getting support. Since payment is already here, many of those people start getting lazy as there is no boss to slap them, this later creates whatever we can see going on. Sure, there will be those that will manage to control themselves, having a much larger picture in mind, but most of them won't.
Though, what is also visible is the fact that most basic methods of marketing are effective as heck, there is of course irony in it, as proper methods would give significant boost and triple or even quadruple gotten monthly amount. Though, more advanced the method, more malicious it is in nature, so that may be a second barrier outside of possessing needed skills.
All being said, the main blow will come from being too full of yourself, surrounding with yes men and getting corrupted. Then it will explode and since many of them roll around each other, guilt by association will increase blast radius. Nothing new, matter of time and it will be a heck of a drama to watch and laugh at.
The lazier, milking devs never cared about trying to be genuine or realistic. They sell to the lowest common denominator knowing half of what they promise will neither be fulfilled, or noted as missing by their supporters. Problem with the h-games scene, especially, is that the majority of the audience are mouth-breathing retards incapable of higher functioning or doing a 5-minute google search. If you promised an NTR/monster girl/lesbian/female protag/open-world rpg in unity in the h-games section right now, I can guarantee people would ship you MILLIONS of shekels on that hollow promise alone.
Yes and no, would depend how it's done and on materials to present. Just words and empty promises do not work with such effect, there needs to be a carrot attached to that string.
Then again, all of this while brings money and with proper education ain't that hard to do... It's such a huge pain in the ass when you are not desperate or in financial need.
I anticipate the billions of negreps from that bit of truth. People are easily hurt when faced with the truth.
Oh yeah, that's why truth is best to hurt people, they can't take it... some do act like they are under seven stages with interesting outcome, but many start looping around like a dog following it's own tail... And then a dog trips and magnitude of everything is way bigger, being much funnier to look at.
Believe me, I've fought the good fight as you are. I've learned to temper it a bit better over time not from being "beaten down", but from knowing when to pick my fights and when to say "fuck you, you're a piece of shit, and so am I." The critical part is recognizing that you're as much a piece of shit as them because how else would you know they're a piece of shit? XD
It takes one to know one. I don't care about fighting a good fight... It's like I never agreed with the bullshit they teach you: Knowing how to fight, you must remember that you can't use your skills to attack weaker ones.
Well, if I win the fight, who is the weaker one? It's dumb as fuck and goes along the lines of need of always being on the right side before acting. Sometimes it's not easy to tell and you need outcome.
Ah, to be young, naive, and breathing through my mouth once more...

Like I said, an imperfect leader is someone who tries to balance the positive qualities into a single form. Abradolf Lincler is a joke in R&M for a reason. You can't genetically-engineer the perfect leader, or teach someone to be so good at leading that they have both the fortitude and intelligence to outshine their predecessors. Eventually, a good leader hits a block he can't overcome and stagnates. Hell, Canada had Stephen Harper for about 10-12 years, and the last three of those he was showing signs of running out of steam.

Hence, term limits. We don't need another Franklin Roosevelt or Napoleon Bonaparte serving past their prime and fucking up all the good they did.
You know... there were many Kings and Queens out there, often from same family. They were being taught how to lead. Sure, we can pinpoint exceptionally good and bad ones, but there are tons of average ones. They got the job done they were taught to do. Just because they didn't do anything incredible, doesn't mean they did badly. At the same time I do believe you can genetically engineer a perfect leader, it's a matter of knowing how and possessing necessary data... We don't have any of those, neither we even have a clue where to start.
 
Last edited:

super_slicer

Tentacle God
Nov 17, 2010
3,961
113
Don't you guys think it's time to take it to PMs? Maybe even give this discussion it's own thread?
 
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
Don't you guys think it's time to take it to PMs? Maybe even give this discussion it's own thread?
Lol, not really. Just two adults having a talk about things. Anyway.

http://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/biker-vigilantes-against-motorcycle-thieves/


Congratulations UK (London), this is the point where people start taking things into their own hands as UK policemen are useless whiners. I generally have personal respect for police force, but it's related to a place where I am. Those guys on mopeds could be easily rounded up and dealt with (don't say it takes time, regulations, etc - I have seen bigger issues solved in lesser amount of time), but people responsible to keep law and order are useless. When this is their issue with criminals you can't expect much. Seriously, in a normal country this wouldn't be an issue, shit they would probably get a ticket for riding without a helmet and it would be their smallest problem after cops are done.
UK, your police force is a joke.
Brits that reached boiling point and are doing something - good job.
 
Last edited:

XSI

Lurker
Nov 10, 2008
2,242
83
But why would they actually stop crime when a high crime rate is what lets them say they need to put more funding in police surveilance tech so they can suppress 'harmful opinions' ?
There is incompetence, and there is being oblivious to people feigning incompetence. Clearly someone in power wants the police to be jokes in all ways except their online presence and the ability to disarm the natives. They've been jokes long enough that the only other option is that someone is just taking all their funding and 'investing' into trips to a casino with it
 
Oct 31, 2014
2,495
113
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
But why would they actually stop crime when a high crime rate is what lets them say they need to put more funding in police surveilance tech so they can suppress 'harmful opinions' ?
There is incompetence, and there is being oblivious to people feigning incompetence. Clearly someone in power wants the police to be jokes in all ways except their online presence and the ability to disarm the natives. They've been jokes long enough that the only other option is that someone is just taking all their funding and 'investing' into trips to a casino with it
Kinda this. In the end, country forced people's hands to do this, so they are responsible for any fuck ups that will happen with mobs hunting criminals. It would be bad if people realized that there are other criminals, not only those on mopeds and then decided to bring justice... Nah, proper police force can only work as intimidation or stopping power for tiny groups. But, for now it is exactly that, it's not the whole country going against gov.
Ahhh I remember that one, good movie, good dystopian movie... @[email protected]

In other news, cannabis for recreational use became legal in Canada today; the few completely legal shops opening up in each province sold out pretty quickly:
http://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/health/canada-legalizes-recreational-marijuana/index.html
Oh... so cannabis usage will drop down in Canada, got it.
 
Feb 2, 2014
485
43
Aug 29, 2016
949
93
Nov 26, 2009
1,452
63
Ahhh I remember that one, good movie, good dystopian movie... @[email protected]

In other news, cannabis for recreational use became legal in Canada today; the few completely legal shops opening up in each province sold out pretty quickly:
http://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/health/canada-legalizes-recreational-marijuana/index.html
I wonder how shops got a legal supply so quick, illegal dealers clearing out their old stock?

Lol, not really. Just two adults having a talk about things. Anyway.

http://www.bikerandbike.co.uk/biker-vigilantes-against-motorcycle-thieves/


Congratulations UK (London), this is the point where people start taking things into their own hands as UK policemen are useless whiners. I generally have personal respect for police force, but it's related to a place where I am. Those guys on mopeds could be easily rounded up and dealt with (don't say it takes time, regulations, etc - I have seen bigger issues solved in lesser amount of time), but people responsible to keep law and order are useless. When this is their issue with criminals you can't expect much. Seriously, in a normal country this wouldn't be an issue, shit they would probably get a ticket for riding without a helmet and it would be their smallest problem after cops are done.
UK, your police force is a joke.
Brits that reached boiling point and are doing something - good job.
I was wondering how these people could get away with vigilantism, then I noticed he was brown and therefore the police will be happy to allow them to take the law into their own hands (and own courts innit)
 
Apr 3, 2018
803
93
I wonder how shops got a legal supply so quick, illegal dealers clearing out their old stock?
Wasn't cannabis already allowed in Canada? (for medical use)
I heard they just legalized the "recreational" use. That should explain why there was a stock in the first place.
As for getting more stock, well cannabis is called weed because it's exactly that: a plant the can grow without any work (except hiding it from the police but that no longer a thing there).

Cannabis producer trying ridiculously hard to not grow too much cannabis and artificially rise the price (gotta prevent is from growing where you don't want).

Tobacco producer just growing things.


Still, if you can, don't smoke.
 

Similar threads