Juice @ Juice @midwest.social

Posts

3

Comments

621

Joined

1 yr. ago

The ball was red, like a red rubber ball. The person was sort of indistinct from the neck up, it was more like my view was focused on the ball itself and didn't see a face, but it was a man, wearing a white shirt and dark tie, and dark pants. The ball was about the size of a baseball, wasn't completely smooth and shiny, sort of a matte with a slight grippy texture. Table was square, wood, like a medium brown color. The ball rolled off the table and bounced a few times.

All these decisions were automatic when reading the prompt, it's what I saw.

I've just become aware of aphantasia myself, I have a few family members who have it apparently. I was talking to my BIL about it the other day, I was saying how I'm a big fan of reading, but I mostly read nonfiction. He said he doesn't read much, mostly biographies, but fiction doesn't do much for him because he can't picture anything in his head. I can picture everything in great detail when I read fiction. Its interesting because our minds work very differently

We all have our part to play in making the world an amusing place, dagnabbit

Allegedly this doctor is a hero

Normalize tactical use of "dingdong"

well im not a philosophy professor, and ive done my level best to explain basic humanities concepts to you. its funny because i used to make these exact same arguments that you are, and my understanding was incomplete, as it still is. i hope you dont have it figured out as much as you think you do, because then you'll likely not grow as a person. In any case I've made long arguments as well as I can make them. Thanks for the discussion

But your problems with my explanation depend on a view of reality that is completely divorced from history. Your conditions for realness depend on the existence of a real physical object and reject socially contingent objects, which is your right, but this is an example of an epistemological crisis: I insist that things that are socially real are real; you deny their existence, also denying the existence of law, value, many things that our society depends on. If you pick out parts of my argument that you don't like and act like the points that I did make just don't exist, then you are making your argument based on willful ignorance. But besides that, if your standard for what is real differs from mine we cant even have a debate, we just talk past each other smugly assuring ourselves that we are correct because our opponent is just like stupid or something. Maybe you think I'm stupid, I don't think you're stupid. My point is you can't just deny the existence of things that are real in every way but physically. If a huge proportion of people in a society believe that something is real it is the same as that thing being empirically real. You can't just throw away thousands of years of history because it disagrees with your narrow definition of objectivity. Or I guess you can, none is stopping you, but don't pretend its consistent with reality.

Maybe god exists, maybe it doesnt, maybe god is just nature, but religion exists which would be the same as if god exists

I'll try to be a little less obtuse. I thought better about getting into this in the shitpost comm, and since I'm getting massacred my first impulse was probably correct. But I'm a huge nerd, cant help it.

So I guess I don't know what you mean by epistemologically consistent. As a general rule of epistemology, people can have different, incompatible epistemologies, which basically renders communication impossible, since the participants use different models to determine what is true. This uh happens a lot since people think the way that they determine truth is the "right" one. Even my attempt to adapt different ways of thinking to different situations has limits, since I'm never going to subscribe to like flat earth theory. Not all epistemologies are equally valid or rigorous. Arithmetic is highly rigorous, whereas flat earth has a low bar for proof. Also I'll argue that the validity of various theories of knowledge are historically contingent. Empiricism isn't just "more true" than religion because it is more rigorous; in fact the hermetic tradition was extremely rigorous and scientific, but because they viewed "god" as indistinguishable from nature, they could synthesize religion and empirical science without contradiction. Their scientific inquiry was a sacred religious ritual where god learned about its own physical body (nature) through the consciousness of the scientist which was a part of the consciousness of god. This kind of monism is completely foreign to us, yet Isaac Newton was a Hermetic whose theories are still highly relevant and rigorous. But if a scientist publicly expressed these views to the academy they'd be deemed an eccentric, if not a crank of the highest order.

The second part of your question is more straightforward. How would the world change if god didn't exist the way I described, as being socially real? There'd be no churches, no religious art, no pilgrimages that attract tens of millions each year. There'd be no recognizable European medieval period. Tens or hundreds of millions of people wouldn't donate their time or money to the church. Which like, wouldn't that be fucking awesome? no indigenous "schools" no religious colonialism/imperialism.

But all these followers aren't lying in order to trick you into thinking god exists. They feel god, they experience god through their institutions, rituals, art, monuments, and yes, crimes. This exactly is the limit of pure Empiricism, it forces you to completely disregard subjectivity, or relegate it to a lower order of "realness" than a physical object. A stone in the middle of a lake will have little effect on the outside world outside of its extremely local circumstances; but a religious belief can have deadly implications for millions if it becomes the policy of a government. Laws, money are socially real, determined by their existence on paper, are upheld by sophisticated social constructs that reach into our minds and our behavior. But again, is a law not "real"? Of course it is. Try to break one in front of a cop and find out how real it is.

Well I was specific to say that you have to look at things dialectically in order to see the connection. When you describe other people's beliefs, you say they believe in something that doesn't exist. So in order for something to exist, it has to be a "thing" or an object. This is its own type of logic called "Empiricism" or more radically, "Positivism". Empiricism is a really good basis for reasoning, especially scientific reasoning. The creation of Empiricist reasoning is the intellectual basis for the (notably Atheistic) Enlightenment, which is the ideological superstructure for our current Modernist milieu.

But empiricism is actually bad at other kinds of epistemology (theory of knowledge.) For example, it necessarily divides the objective and the subjective into two separate "things", as well as the mind and body. This leads to some wonky conclusions about metaphysics and the self, particularly where human experience meets nature. Empiricism is great at categorizing, but often fails to reassemble the collection of objects back into a monistic whole. As such Empiricism's theory of social is extremely atomized and individualistic.

Like the way you describe religion, as " trust me bro this thing exists," is a perfect example. There is that part to it, the belief in a god, but there is also creation and appreciation of monuments and temples, ritual, community, social events, group study, all of these human experiences that collectively make up the very real and undeniable power of religion. But my understanding of your explanation just has a bunch of alienated individuals with the same wrong ideas, with no explanation or historical context as to how things became this way. This is also how people come to the very wrong assumption that the value of money doesn't exist. Because it doesn't have an objective form, it doesn't exist. This is just completely untrue. It is socially real, which is as real as any object. In fact religious belief and power is just another form of social currency.

Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm and countless other philosopher theologians imbued Christianity with a consistent, self supporting logic. That was their job, and they have been extremely successful. We can discuss the limitations and shortcomings of that logic, but denying that it is logical is just willful ignorance.

Dialectics has its own shortcomings, so I'm not arguing that one is better than the other. But each form of epistemic reasoning, of which religious belief undeniably contains a vast epistemology, has certain advantages and shortcomings. In my opinion our task isn't to find one way of reasoning and then brow beat others into accepting that reasoning, this is a form of fundamentalism -- a way of determining knowledge, meaning and truth that supercedes all others in every way; which is exactly what religious fundamentalists want people to believe (so those people can be exploited, as fundamentalism always serves some higher power whether it be religious or economic.) Instead I think we should learn as much as we can, acknowledge the strengths and shortcomings of each way of conducting analysis, as well as our own strengths and weaknesses in doing so, and use them as tools to help us understand the world that exists. Leave nothing out, embrace contradiction, and learn how to become the most fulfilled, practical and honest selves.

But then again, everyone is on a different path ;)

There's a philosophy called dialectics where opposites actually define one another. Atheism is a really good example of this IMO. Atheists usually define their beliefs as "no religion" but in practice they are anti-god, anti-religion. This means that even though religion has its own internal logic, being anti-religion has an opposite logic: what is good over here is bad over there. So it really ends up being that theism and atheism, through their contradictory traits, embody a single rational system.

But as many people have learned, through wrestling with these contradictions, we eventually reach a third stage where we just don't give a shit anymore, or maybe we develop some ways of grappling with metaphysical questions which religion is really good at but atheism basically just deny these problems even exist. I think that's why we often relate atheism as being childish, because a lot of people who are self aware and introspective will start out with a religious phase, then go through an atheist phase, and finally land in that secret third thing that is unique to the individual and their community.

I was recently reading a book about Hegel and early Marx, and the author Cyril Smith quoted one of Marx's letters saying something like, "atheists are like children trying to reassure a grownup that they don't believe in the bogeyman" do it seems like these "reddit atheists" have been on this same bullshit for at least the last 150 years

I've got two houses facing each other on my street who have been in a fascist flag competition for as long is I can remember. One of them even has an RFK sign next to his Trump yard sign. But yeah what I described above I saw on my way through a neighborhood in my small town. Its distressing!

People are still falling all over themselves to vote for this turd; to buy a huge stars and stripes decal of him and stick it on the back window of their Ford Raptor next to their Three Percenter decal. Buy a huge flag that says Trump 2024 FUCK YOUR FEELINGS and hang it on a flagpole by the front door to their house, on the street with kids riding their bikes outside.

And there's an ever growing uncertainty about whether or not this meatball is going to actually win or not.

Can confirm, I have spent a lot of time in Columbus Ohio.

I tell jokes. I don't really do small talk. But, yes most conversations are deeply personal and deeply philosophical. I have lots of great friends, a lovely wife, a good job and fantastic kids. So yes, you can do just fine with almost no small talk. Become yourself, not what some unimaginative poster on the internet desperate for validation of their opinions thinks people should or shouldn't become.

Elon Musk loves a fake presentation.

Excuse me? Can you give me more details about what you are trying to say?

70% of Chinese Millennials are homeowners

I love this so much.

I didn't really have the time or energy to go into the supporting logic, for as you've just demonstrated its a very involved argument that involves a lot of oft ignored history of the period after the crushing defeat of the German working class uprising (1923, '24) but before the Nazis took power in the wake of the Reichstag fire ('33, '34). Which honestly I'm not great on anyway, I appreciate your insight, slight factual correction that just makes the point even more urgently, and any book recommendations!

So while we are providing clarification and context to the uninitiated, I dug out Trotsky's definition of fascism from 1932 since we are being so adamant about properly defining it:

At the moment that the “normal” police and military resources of the bourgeois dictatorship, together with their parliamentary screens, no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium – the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the masses of the crazed petty bourgeoisie [the small business owners basically MAGAs], and bands of the declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat [working poor who are so exploited and disillusioned they defy their own class interests]; all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy. […] And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path, does a thorough job. […] When a state turns fascist, it doesn’t only mean that the forms and methods of government are changed […] but it means, primarily and above all, that the workers’ organizations are annihilated; that the proletariat is reduced to an amorphous state; and that a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses and which serves to frustrate the independent crystallization of the proletariat.

In my opinion, wrt building coalition between liberals and communists, there tends to be a real failure by all parties, Marxist communists and liberals alike, to orient the alienated individual within the class or ideological milieu. Liberals can really only see the alienated individual; whereas commies, who claim to be materialists, can view the class/ideological superstructure, or sometimes reluctantly the individual, but almost never both at the same time. Mfs never read/don't understand Theses on Feuerbach and it shows.

Which is to say liberalism and communism can't really be allies, but individual liberals, who we might call progressives, more concerned with rights and human emancipation than preserving private property, can be won over to the demands of class struggle, especially as the conditions of struggle introduce sharp contradictions into their lives and the lives of the people around them. At this point the demands of their class outweigh the explanations furnished by their ideology and alliances can be forged between members of the fractured liberal or social democratic workers, and the communist/socialists who (hopefully) have prepared the field of struggle for the intensifying conflict.

Tldr: noone has a monopoly on being insufferable and maybe we could try not demonizing each other for like 15 seconds and see each other as rational people doing our best, reacting to rapidly changing conditions, that will result in pretty serious lose/lose final consequences for libs and commies alike if we can't resist the actual fascists together.

But now I've been led away from the topic of the post article, proving that we are doomed to become what we most strongly condemn.

there is not and never has been any historical evidence of a red-brown alliance. Communists, even at the height and horror of Stalinist purges, were never fascist. Fascism is something different, and the urge to conflate the two just makes you seem dangerously uneducated on the subject. No, worse than that, because misunderstanding and miscommunicating the nature of fascism is actually a boon to the fascists! It is in essence no different than when Stalin intentionally mischaracterized social democracy as being "the moderate wing of fascism" and worse than actual Nazism in order to give himself political cover in the lead up to Molotov-Ribbentrop.

So when you deceive yourself and others about the nature of fascism, you are aiding the fascists. So like don't do that.

But this still has nothing to do with the article or post, talk about living rent-free

What does this post or article have to do with "Tankies?" Did you just hop in here to badmouth them without any context? The idea that anyone who opposes Democrats is a conservative is so out of touch. You must live in a world of ghosts, probably ones wearing ushankas and singing the Internationalé. What a strange comment.

Soulsborne games are hard, but they're designed to teach you how to play through death. I'm gonna teach you how to play Bloodborne.

These are tips for a first playthrough, some of this advice isn't universal but it will take the sting and uncertainty out of the game since it actually tells you very little in the way of strategies and best practices.

1. Which weapon to pick - you start out without a weapon, the game wants you to get killed, and when you do you will get a starting weapon. I'm going to make a gross generalization here, all three weapons are great, but start with the Saw Cleaver. Its arguably the best weapon in the game, and you can choose it right after you die. You can perform a light attack with r1 and if you press l1 immediately after you will do a transform attack which is 50% more powerful than your light attack and does a ton of stagger which can break boss parts allowing you to get free hits and . You can literally just r1-l1-l1-r1-l1-l1... Combo through the entire lgame. Simple and incredibly powerful. Then, pick the pistol to learn how to parry. Put all your upgrade materials into the cleaver.
2. How to level your character - if you pick the saw cleaver, it levels primarily with strength. But your first priority is to level vitality. Level your vitality to 25 before leveling any other stat. This will give you more survivability, and most of your damage will come from upgrading your weapon anyway. Skill is also okay to level, it will give you some more damage to your weapon (not as much as str) and also strengthen visceral attacks. Arcane is if you want to use hunter tools, which are neat but strictly optional. Bloodtinge strengthens your gun, but there are only 3 weapons that scale with it and they're more difficult to use. Endurance is optional, it makes fights a bit faster cuz you can get more hits in before your stamina depletes, but you can play the whole game with base stamina no problem. Strictly optional. The max you should level any stat is 50, the exception is endurance which has a hard-hardcap at 40. Stick to vitality, str and skill until they reach their hardcaps at 50 and then you can level whatever you want and mess around cuz you'll likely be in ng+ or higher. Honestly levels don't matter much, you could get a cheat that levels you to level 250 and still struggle with early bosses. I've seen it happen.
3. How to level your weapon - bloodstone shards are used to make your weapon stronger. You can also fit gems in your weapon to make your weapon more powerful. You'll get lots of these but level up your cleaver until it won't take any more of a certain type. There are 4 different bloodstones, and you need 16 to level up 3 times (except the last one which only requires 1 for the final level.) Max level is 10.
4. Other tips - you don't have to fight everything. Lots of people give up at the beginning because there is a bonfire with a bunch of enemies around it and they try to take them all on. Or you can just run past it if you know the way past. If you get stuck on a boss explore somewhere you haven't been, or take a break. You need a clear head. Remember the game teaches by killing you so if you aren't trying to learn a boss's attack patterns and trying new ways to defeat them, they can be pretty difficult. Serrated weapons like the Cleaver's untransformed mode deal additional damage to beasts, and so does fire, like fire paper and Molotov's. Molotov's are great, use them, and they're pretty cheap early game. Buy bloodvials and bullets too so you don't get caught lacking.

You can summon other players if you have PS+ so r/huntersbell is a good place to find cooperators, and they have a discord too if you don't like reddit. This game is so good, and has tons of replay value so don't worry if you need a little help. The story is amazing so just get through it. The DLC is 1000% worth it, if you find yourself liking the game get the dlc. Reach out of you need help or have questions, I love this game so much, and I love helping people with it so don't hesitate!