Sotuanduso @ Sotuanduso @lemm.ee

Posts

2

Comments

1,122

Joined

2 yr. ago

The person who drew that pipe captioned it "This is not a pipe" in French.

For some reason it's a popular piece. I don't really like it because I prefer art to be aesthetically interesting rather than "any creative work that makes a statement."

This joke actually made me wince.

Used to be, when you'd search "man meme" on Google Images, you'd get a note saying memes about groups of people may be offensive. It doesn't anymore, but that's not a double standard thing because it also doesn't if you search "woman meme." Still does if you search races.

I'm so glad to see more people around here realizing this.

Once I was in a car with my cousin, fealing kinda sick, so I had a towel on my lap in case I threw up. I did end up throwing up, but I did so on my cousin, which prompted him to throw up right back on me.

Some quirk of this version of Markdown I think.
Try putting two spaces at the end of a line before your single newline.

Political parties are part of the culture war too. The rich don't fit into a party. They like right wing economics because it keeps them rich, sure, but they push left wing culture because it gets people off their backs. As a whole, they play the two parties against each other, and we probably won't be able to stop that unless we can get more parties into the running.

Political hatred - probably the most prominent form of hatred in the US - is driven by the dichotomy, the "you're either with me or against me" that's made so convenient by the fact that everyone has to fit into one of two buckets anyways. Throw more parties into the mix, and it's harder to make that distinction because any given party works with you sometimes and against you at other times, and if you label them all as enemies, you're going up against the majority of the country.

It's easier said than done, though. Duverger's law states that the maximum number of viable political parties is the number of seats in a given election + 1. So we can't just will another political party into viability without booting out one that we already have. We have to change the voting structure. Proportional representation in congressional elections sounds good, and with fewer voting districts, it's also harder to gerrymander. But that's gonna be hard to push for.

Once we can accomplish that, the hatred will slowly subside (but not entirely,) and people will be able to see more clearly to deal with the class struggle. Plus, with more parties, we might even be able to vote in candidates who support the actual economic changes we want instead of just paying lip service to the lower classes.

I don't think that quite lines up with the Bible, but even then, God is still omniscient and would have knowledge (and thus a concept) of humanity and life even if He didn't experience it firsthand.

I never met the guy.

I had to zoom my screen out to 50% to fit that video.

Who's this X fellow I keep hearing about?

Huh... never thought of that. Though I think a key difference is that it's one race diluting many races, rather than... well, in great replacement theory, it's not even whites being diluted by other races, it's them being replaced by way of high immigrations and low birth rates. So if it was like a large group of humans migrating into an elvish city, then yes, but this is more like the elvish country gaining a population of half elves and eventually humans around the edges.

From what I can tell in the wiki, great replacement people aren't so much threatened by half-minorities as they are by flocks of minorities moving in until whites are the minority. It's the culture shock, and you don't get as much of a culture shock from someone who was raised on the edges of your culture.

Not to say you have to include human hegemony in your campaign, of course. Your campaign, your rules, and you know what your players are comfortable with more than I do.

Yeah, these are made up. The Bible is a higher authority than the opinions of saints.

• Eating before the time of meals.
  This is specifically for eating before a meal. But 1 Corinthians 11:34 says that if you're hungry, you should eat at home before a group meal so that you're not hogging food at the meal.
• Seeking better quality foods.
  The example given was the Israelites complaining about the food they were given. That doesn't mean you can't take food you have access to.
• Preparing food better.
  Matthew 5:13 - "But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor?" Jesus clearly saw the value in seasoning.
• Eating more than you need.
  It is true that you should eat in moderation. I don't know if it's a sin, but Proverbs has a few things to say about it. But the example given here was Sodom, whose sins included gluttony. Or rather, gluttony while there were poor people. Overeating at the expense of others is different from just overeating.
• Taking food too eagerly.
  If it's to the point of idolizing food (prioritizing it over God and His causes,) then yes. But if you're at a friend's house and they bring out mac & cheese and you cheer, there's nothing wrong with that. Y'know, as long as you're not being crazy like snatching it out of their hands.

An omnipresent being with no concept of humanity and life

Whose Bible were you reading?

As it turns out, it you post a line that starts with "some" and contains "told me" soon thereafter, my brain tries to add a tune.

Alternative: humans were specifically engineered to be able to half-breed with anything - even elemental beings - so that they'd be able to take over the world.

I thought the sword in the stone and Excalibur were different weapons, and Excalibur was the replacement for when the other sword broke.

Is it a Hallmark card platitude because it's short or because it sounds cheery? Why can't it be actual philosophy? Logically, there's no way for you to earn a shot at life before you're alive. Since it's always given undeserved, earning it is entirely irrelevant. There's no way to earn it, even by living perfectly. If you could earn it, you could earn a second life. I'm not talking about "oh wow, you're such a good person" kind of earning it. Being a good person won't earn you the throne of England either.

A good thing given undeserved is a gift.

Your mileage may vary. Yeah, there are a lot of bad things in life, but that doesn't mean life as a whole is bad. You don't get to make that call when there are so many people who enjoy life. Not even if you define life's pleasures as merely relief from life's needs and strains.

To be clear, I'm not saying you should be having kids. You're fully within your rights to judge the circumstances of your own life and where your kid would end up to decide if it's right or wrong. Obviously it'd be wrong to have a kid in the freezing arctic with no hope of escape or survival for more than a few years. But you can't say having kids is unequivocally wrong for everyone in every circumstance.

And if you truly believe life is wholly bad, that might be a symptom of depression.

By default, you don't deserve to be alive. But you can't earn it either. It's a gift.