Peruvian_Skies @ Peruvian_Skies @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

222

Joined

1 yr. ago

Not "again", "still". This attempt to illegally silence everyone who has anything bad to say about him has been ongoing for years and years and is only ever going to stop once he runs out of money to pay his enforcers lawyers.

Old=good is a great mentality specifically when standing the test of time is an important factor. For the most part, the old code that's still used today is only still used because it's proven good, whereas it's a grab bag with newer code. And that's the cause of the unwarranted nostalgia thay you're rightfully criticising.

It's like with music. "Oh, the X's were the best decade for music, today's music is garbage". No, 90% of everything is crud but unless you're an enthusiast, once enough time has passed, you'll only ever be exposed to the 10% that isn't. 50 years from now nobody is going to be listening to Cardi B.

Drag is incorrect. Furthermore, from looking at drag's comment history, I gather that drag makes a habit of being confidently incorrect.

You're asking the wrong person. I've been disgusted by him ever since I had the misfortune of watching an episode of The Apprentice.

You made the original claim without citing any sources or even making a logical argument. I presented my reasoning. There is absolutely no reason for me to go to the trouble of citing sources when you made zero effort at all.

Also, facts that are common knowledge and/or self-evident do not require sources unless specifically challenged, and everything I said is both of these things.

It would blow my mind even if his opponent had zero qualifications. The fact that she's actually competent and charismatic just adds to the surreality of the situation.

"Having the capacity for free will" is not even remotely the same as "being capable of making completely disposessed choices in every single circumstance". When considering one's options, different people in different situations give different weights to different factors.

Consider a person acting under the threat of being murdered if they don't comply with some demand, like in an armed robbery. The fact that making certain choices, like refusing to cooperate, is in practice nearly impossible for them in this case has no bearing on whether or not they "have the capacity for free will" in a general sense. Likewise someone being manipulated by a person they fell in love with.

In the same vein, a narcissist is strongly compelled by internal factors to act only in ways that gratify their overinflated ego. While it may conceivably not be 100% impossible for them to go against this compulsion, it is extremely unlikely that it will even occur to them to do so, and given that it does occur to them to do so, it is extremely unlikely that they will choose that course of action. They act in predictable ways for this reason. The weights they place on certain factors are consistently different from average. This is entirely unrelated to the question of "free will".

Thankfully a lot has changed since then. Back then not even most Democrats thought he was as unhinged as he's been acting in public since Kamala Harris took over the ticket.

I was wrong about who I was for several years. A pretty unexpectedly intense DMT trip set me right

EDIT: This isn't really the ideal place to elaborate on my experience, but thanks for the interest.

... with blackjack and hookers.

Termux has been a thing for years.

In other words, the consent of a corporation is more important than the consent of a human being... for the public distribution of that human being's likeness in an intimate context. Holy dystopia, conservatives are fucked in the head.

Yes, I do need you to draw me a diagram. Please include in the diagram at least a small semblance of understanding of how diplomacy and international politics work.

How did you go from "Netanyahu doesn't represent me, I'm an American" to "we have state sanctioned ethnic cleansing in Gaza" in a heartbeat without a single flash of self-awareness?

Yes, I'm just explaining it, not justifying it. What I means is "don't get worked up or upset about it because this is just human nature and while you may be able to change this particular manifestation of it, you will never fix the underlying problem", not "don't try to change people's minds when they're wrong". You're right to be teaching people some discernment. Just don't suffer when they refuse to listen.

I'm not one of the people flinging insults at this guy. I just understand why others are doing it. They see that it was a monetization guy from Ubisoft and they flip out. Is it a rational and objective reaction? No, but people are neither rational nor objective most of the time.

He only really wants to be a dictator for a single nanosecond. But that desire renews itself each nanosecond.

Well, surely we can agree that it's an unfortunate job title at least - it's easy to see why the people are dogpiling on him. If it actually were the money guy saying this, I assume you'd have no objection to the public reaction?

Every public accusation is a confession.

Look, much as the heavily online audience likes to pretend otherwise, most people making these games are perfectly nice, care about what they do and even have some degree of attunement to their audiences.

Sure, most people involved in these projects do. But for any given team, if you told me you knew for a fact that exactly one person in that team wasn't, and asked me who I thought that person was, I'd guess "the money guy" every single time.