Total posts: 770
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
I could have sworn that Mharman said somewhere that this game would be role madness, but I can't find it. Technically, that wouldn't necessarily preclude a Vanilla depending on how exactly you define role madness (sometimes a game with one vanilla is still considered rolemad depending on who you ask), but it doesn't look good for Vader either way.
Looked through the discord for this but couldn't find it. If you can hunt it down that will probably be the final nail in the coffin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Your continued defense of Vader is noted.
Trembling in my boots
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
He said the mod told him This and he was an item in the game.He’s not an item in the game at all and if the mod told him that then the mod fucked up lol. But I don’t think Mharm did that because I asked him was I a category or did I have tiers. Said he could not say and linked me the wiki.All of this is wrong.341 and 354
I would interpret a weapon as an item. But yeah, if Mharnam told you that then it seems like it's a lie. I'm leaning scum too now.
I definitely want to get more reactions and activity from the inactive players though, we have two more days.
My question for you is that if he does flip scum, does Luna read as a zealous townie in light of that or as scum bussing someone who made a mistake?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
I did not catch this earlier. You slipped but not in the way Luna thought. This is factually wrong.
Elaborate? I read this as him saying he thought it said 'short sword' and it said 'shortsword'. How are you reading it?
Created:
Posted in:
Tbh I could see being confused by this. Shortsword is apparently a category containing categories, and we used an example that was specifically, a metal and that is the category which the category of short swords contains. If Mharnam linked him this wiki I would also feel confused.
Created:
Posted in:
Wait nvm I forgot you're not allowed to copy-paste PMs in forum mafia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Can you tell us exactly what your role PM says?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No he said my character itself is not tiered. My however my pm mentions tiers but it is not my character. Especially one in particular
What do you mean? Like you are a short sword (no metal) but your pm mentions an iron axe? Or an iron sword?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
This is more of what I’m basing my thoughts on When I say meta
Sorry having a blonde moment what do you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Well I haven't played forum mafia in ages and DDO is gone so no. But it's very common in live mafia.I mean maybe that's the difference. In live mafia you don't have as much time to come up with a sophisticated strategy, so getting mad is the easiest to come up with under pressure. In forums scum can plan things out together, run posts by each other, etc. so it's easier for them to keep their cool.
I don't know, I can see being so invested in a game like DP4 to wig out over being lynch as town but in DP1 it seems like bizarre behavior for a townie. But also that's my line of reasoning. My strongest scum read is on Luna that's mostly down to wide inactivity. What were your thoughts on iron toaster's claim? I'm kind of on the fence about that. Some people said it was a townie thing to do because it was a big risk, but it's also a perfect fakeclaim as scum because it would dissuade investigation and give him an excuse for visiting someone. If scum were given cop as a fake claim they could add the bomb aspect and know they were safe from counterclaims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Single link to an example? I've played a decent number of games and never seen it. Luna blowing up like this makes him the easy lynch. Would have been much easier for another target to emerge if scum Luna had played it cool or let his scum buddies redirect attention.
Well I haven't played forum mafia in ages and DDO is gone so no. But it's very common in live mafia. I remember Luna, who is TUF iirc, doing it often. YYW would do it too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
And he was town, wasn't he?
Say what you will about RM, but I don't think he should be used as a barometer of normal human behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I literally have as scum
Same. Once you reach a certain point, sometimes blowing everything up is the best choice and hope that some other target emerges in the chaos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
That to me comes off as scum Luna to answer skeps question earlier. I may be wrong and I’d have to go look but I feel like the blow up throw your hands up is slam thing him and I both tend to do as scum to feign sincerity
That was exactly my foggy recollection from my DDO days, just wanted someone to confirm it for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@irontoaster
Mikal, JoeBob and maybe Cerulean for scum team?
Why do you think JoeBob and Ceru are scum?
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know if I've ever played with Vader/Supa, but I talked to him a quite a bit as Supa and him getting 'annoyed' at being FOSd on something a bit flimsy does ring true to me as an 'honest' reaction. I'm waffling a bit I think I'll reread the DP later. Not sure if it's Town FoSing Town or a mislynch wagon attempt but leaning towards the latter. In any case I think we should try and generate more activity from the quieter members. Scum could easily be hiding in the periphery and we have plenty of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He meant like 'iron axe' vs. 'axe'
Or 'golden apple' vs. 'apple'
Do you have any reads that stick out for you at the moment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
How does Luna typically respond to FOS as scum vs. town? You probably have more experience playing with him than anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Clarifying again and sorry.Are you the base item or a tier of the itemExampleAxeOr iron axeJust say axe or iron axe and I’m groovy
Iron axe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Are you a tier of an npc or a just something like “bird”
No, it has a tier.
Created:
Posted in:
Luna is reading like scum who had his wagon derailed by a deus ex machina intervention and is struggling to start a new one on someone else.
VTL Luna
I don't care about your claim, what are your reads? Your posts have talked more about theory than about behavior. Outside of Mikal, who do you think is scum, and why? Who do you have town reads on?
I don't care about your claim, what are your reads? Your posts have talked more about theory than about behavior. Outside of Mikal, who do you think is scum, and why? Who do you have town reads on?
Created:
Posted in:
I've never played with Vader, Savant, Cerulean, Ultra, Casey, Iron, Joebob, or Banana before. Did any of you guys go by a different name on DDO? Let me know if I'm off-base with any of my reads on them, I generally have a harder time reading unfamiliar players.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
My block right now for pressure isLunaSavantCeru
I get the other two, why Savant? I had lean town for him so far.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm an NPC... I guess? Know literally nothing about this game.
Don't see the point of a mass soft claim if scum has been given role and character fake claims, but not going to clog up the DP with arguing about it.
Don't see the point of a mass soft claim if scum has been given role and character fake claims, but not going to clog up the DP with arguing about it.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think we should be discussing whether Mharman accidentally confirmed them. I think Mikal's town for other reasons (it may not seem like a lot, but his thinking on Luna makes sense and I don't think he'd fake that as scum), and I think overfocusing on a post like this isn't going to do us any favors.
What's done is done. If he's confirmed he's confirmed, might as well be open about it. It's like a flip DP1 without a death, a little treat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Cerulean
It's been a while.I have a decent amount of theme knowledge, although I was expecting NPCs, not whatever these characters are.
Skimming the DP cause I'm exhausted, will reread tomorrow, but this stuck out to me. It was one of the first posts and was made before anyone posted even a hint of a soft claim yet seems to imply knowledge of multiple characters and confusion over their nature and at the lack of NPCs being included. If you were just looking at one role pm (yours) it would make no sense to wonder at the lack of NPCs - you just have a sample size of one, and who knows what other people have? This seems to be a possible scum slip as the only way to have a sample size of multiple 'characters' to look at the very beginning of the game is to be in a scum PM with multiple roles. I got up at like 4 am so I'm going to hit the sack.
Created:
Posted in:
Just a heads up that I'll be traveling for business today and won't be able to post till tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Would you rather be a simp or the head leader of your wife?
Wtf is a head leader? Like walk her around on a lead? What?
Would you rather go back and kill baby Hitler or take the chance to talk and reason with him to be against a "master race" mentality?
I'd lovingly nurture his budding artistic talent and introduce him to a nice Jewish gal with huge knockers later on in life.
Would you rather die once losing everything possibly burning in hell or reincarnate, relive over and over with the hell on earth?
Die once.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Reminder: This thread is for voting only. No further discussions.
Good point.
Created:
I think that relates to an unfounded slippery slope fear; which isn't to say the CoC couldn't do with an overhaul. For zero moderation, there was DDO for the longest time; for ultra light moderation, 4Chan still exists. We don't pretend to be the only option, but are are rather open that we're not safe space for anything and everything. At the same time, we're not power tripping by banning people for getting on our nerves, nor for having a harmless different opinion (such as regarding pineapple on pizza).
I mean, you're the one who proposed an iron-clad causal link between allowing a debate on the historicity of the Holocaust on a minor, almost forgotten debate site and the cattle cars being rolled out again, then used it to permaban a user a day after he created his account and had made what? One post? Talking about unfounded slippery slopes is a bit of throwing stones in the old glass house, isn't it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Grave vs venial is actually binary.I also presumed there was a scale but masturbating is considered as evil as murder and rape in Catholicism, I am not joking.It is binary. It is grave ir venial by its very nature then becones mortal or just grave depending how knowledgable one was it was a sin and how lucid/awake/sober etc they were when doing the act.
Venial vs. Mortal sin is one type of distinction which applies in one particular context. But there are many more gradations - Catholicism encompasses a whole field know as hamartiology. Aquinas wrote entire tomes dedicated to the study of sin. The seven deadly sins, for example, are another level. Sins are judged not just on whether they can damn you or not but how they distort and damage your long-term relationship with God and how you relate to other people and the world around you. The reason that both will damn you is that both sever your relationship with God and the grace of forgiveness which He extended to you. Hell is not some punishment that is meted out if you reach a certain level of sin, it's simply eternity cut off from God's grace, and sin is what severs that connection. That does not mean that they have equal weight. Christ Himself expounded upon this:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Offenses against the innocent (children) are clearly being pointed out here by Christ as especially grave. Also, Catholicism believes in more than two states after death. Heaven is for saints, who have cleaved as closely to God's will as possible during life. For most of us, we can hope for purgatory. And here once more the gravity of your sin comes into play, because purgatory is a thing of degrees.
So no. Catholicism does not believe that raping and murdering a child in a black sacrament to Satan is in any sense morally equivalent to jerking off outside of the fact that if you are in a state of grace while doing either of them you will no longer be in it after committing the act. I would HOPE that a priest would also impose different penances for those two acts,
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Site will get banned in Europe and European users will maybe need to hand over devices to get fully checked if this site hosts holocaust denial and they actively use it.
There are probably Europeans who want to join the rest of the free world and post on debate sites. Maybe they should take it up with their governments, who have taken it upon themselves to ban debate, and not those debate sites which refuse to also ban debate.
Created:
Proposition 1: New moderatorsPart 1: Should DART bring on new moderators?
A. Yes
Part 2: If yes, who should those moderators be? You can vote for more than one. If voting for more than one please rank your preferences. Here are the applications we received:
1. Savant
2. Swagnarok
3. Mikal
Proposition 2: Should the website be rebranded to a different domain name
A. Yes
Proposition 3: Updating the COCShould the COC prohibit the use of racial slurs?
B. No
Proposition 4: New featuresWhat new features would you like to see on the new website? Multiple choices are permitted. If selecting multiple options please rank the order of what you want to see most strongly.
1. Add images / videos
2. Forum signatures
3. Groups / Clubs
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Thou shalt not murder.It is doctrinally unfeasible to do that and expect Heaven especially if the drive is revenge rather than defense.
There are degrees of murder, and murder=/=killing. Had the state executed this man (he was sentenced to death for murdering the little girl) it would have been perfectly moral under Catholic teaching. That sentence was commuted in a way that I'd argue was unjust - he got off for one of the most heinous crimes imaginable because he was rich and had connections. Was his vigilante killing a sin? Absolutely. Was it as grave as the sin that Frank himself committed? Absolutely not.
I would say I hope they repent but are the guys that did it still alive?
This was in the early 1900s so the chances are slim. I doubt any of them were Catholic in any case - there was considerably more anti-Catholic statement in the South at the time than there was anti-semitism, with only 0.4% of Georgia's population being practicing Catholics around the time of the Civil War. For example, the first practicing Jewish senator in the US was Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, who later served in the Confederate Cabinet. The first Jewish senator by ancestry was David Levy Yulee of Florida, who was another defender of slavery. The South is a lot more complicated than people make it out to be,
How do you know it was not the Black man btw?
I just copy-pasted the details of the murder from Wikipedia:
Around noon on April 26, she went to the factory to claim her pay. The next day, shortly before 3:00 a.m., the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[36] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police.Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched, and her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep, showing that she had been strangled. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to first responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.[37]'A service ramp at the rear of the basement led to a sliding door that opened into an alley; the police found the door had been tampered with so it could be opened without unlocking it. Later examination found bloody fingerprints on the door, as well as a metal pipe that had been used as a crowbar.[38] Some evidence at the crime scene was improperly handled by the police investigators: a trail in the dirt (from the elevator shaft) along which police believed Phagan had been dragged was trampled; the footprints were never identified.[39]
Two notes were found in a pile of rubbish by Phagan's head, and became known as the "murder notes". One said: "he said he wood love me land down play like the night witch did it but that long tall black negro did boy his slef." The other said, "mam that negro hire down here did this i went to make water and he push me down that hole a long tall negro black that hoo it wase long sleam tall negro i write while play with me." The phrase "night witch" was thought to mean "night watch[man]"; when the notes were initially read aloud, Lee, who was black, said: "Boss, it looks like they are trying to lay it on me."[n 7] Lee was arrested that morning based on these notes and his apparent familiarity with the body – he stated that the girl was white, when the police, because of the filth and darkness in the basement, initially thought she was black. A trail leading back to the elevator suggested to police that the body had been moved by Lee.
The main issue with the theory that either black man did it is that blood and hair were found on the second floor of the factory, near Frank's office. Phagan had been laid off and had returned to the factory to get her last paycheck, so it would make sense that she would go to her former boss's office. It appeared as if the girl had been murdered on the second floor and then moved later. Frank acted incredibly suspicious and nervous when first interviewed and at several critical points during the investigation as new evidence emerged. Frank hired Pinkertons to try and push the blame off to other suspects. Employees related a pattern of sexual harassment and unwanted advancements by Frank. A bloody shirt was found in a burn barrel at Newt Lee's residence; the first black man they tried to pin this on and the night watchman who discovered the body. The problem was that Lee was illiterate and could not have written the notes, and the blood on the shirt was smeared all the way up into the armpits, which made the police suspicious as that's apparently not typical in a shirt which is bloodied while wearing it, suggesting a plant by the shady private detectives whom Frank had hired.
They then tried to pin the blame on another black man, Jim Conley, who admitted to having written the two notes, but claimed that Frank had dictated the notes to him and paid him in cigarettes and was also acting suspicious, changing his story multiple times. The police were uneasy about this element and tried to arrange a meeting in in which both men were present to get to the bottom of their conflicting claims. Conley agreed, but Frank refused to meet. Conley was eventually arrested as an accomplice, having confessed to helping Frank move the body and to writing the notes for $200 dollars, claiming that Frank had asked him to take the body to the basement and burn it in the incinerator which it was found near.
In the trial Frank's defense called mostly people who were currently working for him to testify as to his character, with the obvious issue that they depended on his good will for their livelihoods. Conley was cross-examined for 16 hours without folding, and the frustrated defense tried to have his testimony struck from the record after they failed to break him.
I think that it's critical to the case to understand who the Pinkertons were. These were hired thugs essentially, who were hired at the time by wealthy factory owners to intimidate and control their workers, primarily by stopping them from unionizing and asking for better conditions and by breaking strikes. I don't think it's a coincidence that after hiring them a large amount of testimony began to flow from current workers that contradicted those people who had come forth with allegations of sexual harassment and suspicious activity on the day of the murder. I think that the ADL-sponsored narrative that the people of Atlanta (including the Jews on the jury!) were consumed with mad, ravenous antisemitism is flat-out ludicrous. I think it's far more likely that they saw a rich factory owner trying to buy his way out of justice by hiring private investigators and attempting desperately to frame other people for the murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It's even more wild than that. Leo Frank was convicted by a jury with several Jewish members. Then his sentence was commuted by a corrupt governor due to his business connections. The townspeople then basically took justice into their own hands and hung him. Somehow this was turned into some sort of antisemitic witchhunt by the ADL.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
For a guy who talks so highly of European regimes and political thinkers elsewhere on the site, insulting West Europe so severely is not becoming of you.America is far more degenerated away from family values and most things you claim to stand for, than Europe is.
Europe was once great, and her greatness lingered on for a while. I love authors who wrote in her twilight years and diagnosed her many maladies. But her heart has rotted away. Bereft of faith, purpose, or any higher calling, she sinks deeper and deeper into the pit of rank despotism and utopian lunacy. I view the leadership of most European countries nowadays as abjectly evil.
I don't care about good intentions. To quote Eliot quoting Jeremiah:' O Lord, deliver me from the man of excellent intention and impure heart: for the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.' My country has its own problems, but Europe is even further along the path to ruin.
Created:
Id argue against that. I am for free speech but hate speech largely is a tool for harassment.
The problem with this is that 'hate speech' in the US has no legal definition because any laws to regulate it have been struck down as unconstitutional. The only places where it has an actual legal definition are Eurotrash shitholes where the gestapo will break down your door for complaining about immigrants on Twitter. In Germany, this poster likely would be put in jail, not banned. So if you disagree with this ban, you can't really agree with the idea of banning 'hate speech'. In what way is hate speech precisely defined that restricts its application to cases like this in a hard, inflexible manner? It's a vague term which is highly amenable to abuse and shouldn't be anywhere in the code of conduct.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I am with you backwards.Genuinely advocating for the genocides Stalin did as heroic and pushing him as a hero are dangerous to allow. I do think it is strange that Communist regime logos like the literal logo of what Stalin used (hammer sickle, the USSR flag too) are allowed to be donned legally in Europe where of course all Nazistuff is banned to ever dare show/don.Both should be banned, not just the Nazis. There is no way at all to be a so-called good guy USSR Tankie. The regimes of Tankies were consistently genocidal and abusive and USSR was statistically the worst or on par with some.
I don't think either should be censored. I think that the arguments that John Milton put forward in his Areopagitica were largely correct, and that the Church's attempts at censorship fanned the flames of revolt in the Protestant world and caused grave injury to Christendom. When the Counterreformation moved towards apologia and a battle of letters they had much more success at stemming the bleeding.
I deny not, but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors. For books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. I know they are as lively, and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous dragon's teeth; and being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men. And yet, on the other hand, unless wariness be used, as good almost kill a man as kill a good book. Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the earth; but a good book is the precious life-blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life. 'Tis true, no age can restore a life, whereof perhaps there is no great loss; and revolutions of ages do not oft recover the loss of a rejected truth, for the want of which whole nations fare the worse.We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labours of public men, how we spill that seasoned life of man, preserved and stored up in books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom, and if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre; whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at that ethereal and fifth essence, the breath of reason itself, slays an immortality rather than a life.
Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that those confused seeds which were imposed upon Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort asunder, were not more intermixed. It was from out the rind of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil. As therefore the state of man now is; what wisdom can there be to choose, what continence to forbear without the knowledge of evil? He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true warfaring Christian.I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure; her whiteness is but an excremental whiteness.
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing. He who hears what praying there is for light and clearer knowledge to be sent down among us, would think of other matters to be constituted beyond the discipline of Geneva, framed and fabricked already to our hands. Yet when the new light which we beg for shines in upon us, there be who envy and oppose, if it come not first in at their casements. What a collusion is this, whenas we are exhorted by the wise man to use diligence, to seek for wisdom as for hidden treasures early and late, that another order shall enjoin us to know nothing but by statute? When a man hath been labouring the hardest labour in the deep mines of knowledge, hath furnished out his findings in all their equipage: drawn forth his reasons as it were a battle ranged: scattered and defeated all objections in his way; calls out his adversary into the plain, offers him the advantage of wind and sun, if he please, only that he may try the matter by dint of argument: for his opponents then to skulk, to lay ambushments, to keep a narrow bridge of licensing where the challenger should pass, though it be valour enough in soldiership, is but weakness and cowardice in the wars of Truth.For who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious; those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her when she sleeps
Created:
-->
@Barney
such as posting anything else at all
How could he? His account was created yesterday. If he was posting for a month and only argued about the holocaust maybe, maybe this argument would hold water. But he was literally here for one day. It looks like arguing about WWII just results in a reflexive ban.
Created:
Date: 07/01/2025Moderators: Joint Decisionchap470 has been banned permanently for overt Holocaust denial. He posted no other content to imply any interest in genuine engagement. Pure hate speech.DebateArt exists to promote intellectual exchange, not to host historically illiterate provocations or serve as a platform for hatred disguised as discourse (this isn't 4Chan). Holocaust denial is not to be confused with a mere different viewpoint. It is a form of disinformation rooted in malice and bigotry, and it violates both the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct.This is not a ban on discussing WWII, nor events in and surrounding it. Holocaust denial is a well recognized form of extreme hate speech, used to justify calls for repeated genocide. ... Whereas something like denying Australia exists, is just a bit of harmless silliness; and is most certainly not connected to loser terrorists.
Yeah pretty ridiculous.
Whole profile has been wiped clean, so the community can't even make a judgement as to whether the ban is fair or not. This is exactly what I meant is the Leshwanda thread when I said that the 'hate speech' clause in the CoC could easily act as the 'last refuge of scoundrels' and be used to justify blatant censorship. I went to look at the dude's posts to see if he was being otherwise civil and engaging and was just banned for content, but all the evidence is gone. How is any of this transparent?
Also, this debate is apparently fine:
Seems like incredibly heavy-handed and ideologically driven censorship, and a bad sign of things to come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I agree mostly with you, the only thing I would disagree with is the idea that God approved of 'Jews favoring Jews'. When Christ came, the Jewish powers-that-be thought Him to be a fraud and sought his execution. They did this because they expected their Messiah to come bearing a sword, to destroy the Romans, and to reestablish a new Jewish Empire in Israel. The idea that God would send the Messiah to die for all of mankind, and not to set Jews above the rest of humanity, was so offensive to them that they literally committed deicide. Those Jews who accepted Christ and were counted among the first Christians are those who accepted that God was above ethnic loyalties and established a universal church.
While I accept tribalism as a reality that needs to be understood, contextualized, and accepted as part of a larger framework, the ancient Jews are the perfect example of a group who elevated it far too highly. Christ even predicted the absolute desolation that would be visited on those who rejected Him and their city, something that came to pass when Titus razed Jerusalem to the ground and destroyed the Temple (the abomination of desolation) just a few decades later:
And as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: Master, behold what manner of stones and what buildings are here.And Jesus answering, said to him: Seest thou all these great buildings? There shall not be left a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.And as he sat on the mount of Olivet over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him apart:Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall begin to be fulfilled?And Jesus answering, began to say to them, Take heed lest any man deceive you.For many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and they shall deceive many.And when you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, fear ye not. For such things must needs be, but the end is not yet.For nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and famines. These things are the beginning of sorrows.But look to yourselves. For they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues you shall be beaten, and you shall stand before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony unto them.And unto all nations the gospel must first be preached.And when they shall lead you and deliver you up, be not thoughtful beforehand what you shall speak; but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye. For it is not you that speak, but the Holy Ghost.And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death.And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.And when you shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not: he that readeth let him understand: then let them that are in Judea, flee unto the mountains:And let him that is on the housetop, not go down into the house, nor enter therein to take any thing out of the house:And let him that shall be in the field, not turn back to take up his garment.And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days.But pray ye, that these things happen not in winter.For in those days shall be such tribulations, as were not from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, neither shall be.
What came out of the utter destruction of Jerusalem, and with it the old religion and its conceits of ethnic domination, was a ferment of faith spread throughout the very cosmopolitan, heathen Empire which the Jews at the time wanted destroyed. The seeds of faith worked within the heathen empire like yeast in dough, as Christ had also once predicted, and through centuries of persecutions it was eventually converted. The at first sight very tribal, ethnocentric promise given to Abraham in Genesis was fulfilled in the least ethnocentric way imaginable.
Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed.I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and IN THEE shall all the kindred of the earth be blessed
I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the sea shore: thy seed shall possess the gates of their enemies.And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.
What this goes to show is that while tribal loyalties and family loyalties are part of life and are fine, there are also higher things above them (loyalty to God being the main one). Christ's death itself was a lesson in this vein - there were those among the Jews murdered their own Messiah because they were so wrapped up in ideas of their own ethnic superiority. In the Talmud to this day there is what is meant to be a 'lesson' about a necromancer resurrecting the soul of Jesus to ask Him whether he should convert to Judaism. Christ is depicted in this story as repentant, imploring the necromancer to seek the wellbeing of the Jewish people above all others, and is depicted as being punished by God via boiling in excrement for his 'crimes'.
Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy. Onkelos said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Jesus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them in this world? Jesus said to him: Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye (see Zechariah 2:12).Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages.
Created:
Posted in:
It's a false framing of the issue, like many philosophical dilemmas. 'Letting a child die' implies that each person has an absolute moral responsibility to every other human being that they can somehow fail to maintain. This is just absurd - nobody even has knowledge of every single person in the world. It's the sort of lazy, sloppy thinking that people often accept without even examining it.
The reality is that humans are living beings in a natural world which is hostile and must be tamed to some degree for them to survive. This taming, if undertaken by a single person, is a lifelong endeavor that will often take up most of their waking hours. And, alone, they will likely die early, like an animal, as soon as they are too weak to provide for their own continued existence. Similarly, an infant would never even get the chance to live if left to their own devices. So human life is immediately, from the outset, conditional on and contextualized by family life, which provides for its members both before they are able to and after they are able to. Within the family, the elderly who can no longer physically capable of contributing can contribute mentally, through their lifetime of experience. The children are raised with the expectation that they will continue the collective model and provide for the older members as they age.
As the family grows it evolves into a tribe or clan or the tribe, which contains many subsidiary families. And the clan or tribes can come into conflict, and it is from these conflicts that nations and other polities evolve. At no point do any of these situations of mutual obligation include all of humanity. Each of them owes loyalty to its own members and rightly views the others with some degree of suspicion, as the loyalty that they rightly hold towards their own can always engender conflict over resources. If your tribe has excess food that they could either store or give to a rival tribe which had a difficult harvest and was weaker, there is always the possibility that said rival tribe might then occupy a stronger position and then come to threaten yours. This is why such deals usually involve safeguards to ensure loyalty and quiescence from the tributary party if such aid is given.
To strip human beings of these realities and conditions of their existence and to treat them like atomized things floating in the ether with perfectly equal responsibilities to one another isn't deep or wise, it's puerile. Giving to people is noble precisely because it holds a degree of risk, and is praised because any amount of risk taken to be a good person is admirable. Someone who goes 'you're not actually virtuous because you didn't give them your shoes as well' is just a moron who is incapable of parsing these infinitely complex human realities, and wants the world be simpler than it actually is so they can feel fully 'in charge' mentally. They lack wisdom, which is a perspective of each of our profound limitations both mentally and physically.
Camus wrote of this tendency among modern moralists and philosophers in one of his essays and had some very astute insights into the insidious destructiveness of threads of thought guided by supposedly pure utilitarian 'values':
We have exiled beauty; the Greeks took arms for it. A basic difference but one that goes far back. Greek thought was always based on the idea of limits. Nothing was carried to extremes, neither religion nor reason, because Greek thought denied nothing, neither reason nor religion. It gave everything its share, balancing light with shade.But the Europe we know, eager for the conquest of totality, is the daughter of excess. We deny beauty, as we deny everything that we do not extol. And, even though we do it in diverse ways, we extol one thing and one alone: a future world in which reason will reign supreme. In our madness, we push back the eternal limits, and at once dark Furies swoop down upon us to destroy. Nemesis, goddess of moderation, not of vengeance, is watching. She chastises, ruthlessly, all those who go beyond the limit.The Greeks, who spent centuries asking themselves what was just, would understand nothing of our idea of justice. Equity, for them, supposed a limit, while our whole continent is convulsed by the quest for a justice we see as absolute. At the dawn of Greek thought, Heraclitus already conceived justice as setting limits even upon the physical universe itself: “The sun will not go beyond its bounds, for otherwise the Furies who watch over justice will find it out.”We, who have thrown both universe and mind out of orbit, find such threats amusing. In a drunken sky we ignite the suns that suit us. But limits nonetheless exist and we know it. In our wildest madness we dream of an equilibrium we have lost, and which in our simplicity we think we shall discover once again when our errors cease—an infantile presumption, which justifies the fact that childish peoples, inheriting our madness, are managing our history today.
Since ideas differ as to what these values will be, since there is no struggle which, unhindered by these same values, does not extend indefinitely, we are now witnessing the Messianic forces confronting one another, their clamors merging in the shock of empires. Excess is a fire, according to Heraclitus. The fire is gaining ground; Nietzsche has been overtaken.It is no longer with hammer blows but with cannon shots that Europe philosophizes. Nature is still there, nevertheless. Her calm skies and her reason oppose the folly of men. Until the atom too bursts into flame, and history ends in the triumph of reason and the death agony of the species. But the Greeks never said that the limit could not be crossed. They said it existed and that the man who dared ignore it was mercilessly struck down. Nothing in today’s history can contradict them.Both the historical mind and the artist seek to remake the world. But the artist, through an obligation of his very nature, recognizes limits the historical mind ignores. This is why the latter aims at tyranny while the passion of the artist is liberty. All those who struggle today for liberty are in the final analysis fighting for beauty.Of course, no one thinks of defending beauty solely for its own sake. Beauty cannot do without man, and we shall give our time its greatness and serenity only by sharing in its misery. We shall never again stand alone. But it is equally true that man cannot do without beauty, and this is what our time seems to want to forget.We tense ourselves to achieve empires and the absolute, seek to transfigure the world before having exhausted it, to set it to rights before having understood it. Whatever we may say, we are turning our backs on this world. Ulysses, on Calypso’s island, is given the choice between immortality and the land of his fathers. He chooses this earth, and death with it. Such simple greatness is foreign to our minds today.
Excerpts from 'Helen's Exile'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Carpenter is no different than any other female pop artist nowadays. Be a hoe, sing about being a hoe, dance like a hoe, and you'll be famous. That's how it is.
She at least dresses well for the most part. I was so over the Lady Gaga/Nicki Minaj trend of dressing like a literal sped and acting like it's sophisticated and the proles 'just don't get it'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Listen to this whole song (2023) with headphones and then tell me if you've changed your mind.
People have been making shit that sounds just like this for decades. It's always been a niche genre.
Created:
He had a lot of perceptive insights into the nature of the emerging economic order of his time, and like most prognosticators he made a lot of good predictions and a couple of shoddy ones. Overall, a decent albeit flawed thinker for his time, like many of his contemporaries. Most of the people who call him dumb haven't even read his work, it's just an ideological clique reflex. Half of them wouldn't even be able to parse it if they tried.
Take capitalism for instance. If someone says that Marx was 'anti-capitalism' it's very revealing. It reveals that they get all their ideas shoved into their brain by the YouTube commentariat and have never read a single thing that the man wrote. Whatever you may think of him, Marx was one of the most important thinkers of his time and has had more impact on human history than the vast majority of people. If you haven't read and understood him (you can still disagree with him), you're just not someone who has anything worthwhile to say about politics. Marx viewed capitalism as a good development. He saw it as an inherently destructive system which would liquidate the existing remnants of feudal/aristocratic society and then destroy itself through its own excesses and contradictions. He thought that this destruction would pave the way for a more utopian system, and that was where he was naive imo.
Created:
-->
@badger
I don't see you guys having any other politician who isn't running on some lunatic Christian brand or who isn't an Obama clone.
AOC is on that trajectory. Watch videos of Pelosi when she was a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Congressional neophyte, and she sounds like a carbon-copy of AOC. Now she's a sclerotic, corrupt old crone. Same thing happened to Obama, the 'change' candidate. That's what Washington, especially the legislature, does to any reformer. It corrupts, and AOC is already too far gone imo.
Trump's popularity is in abusing the mentally unwell and broke Mexicans, somehow the new Jews of the American Nazi regime, except the Jews had fucking money. When does this translate into any actual good for anyone?
I think this is a very out-of-touch assessment as to the motives and beliefs of the average American voter. My aunt cleans houses for a living. She doesn't have any hate in her heart for Mexicans. But she has a mortgage to pay, and when they border is open and we have people streaming over half the rich people she works for switch to Mexicans who pack into a house like sardines and will work for half as much. School taxes go up because ESL instruction is expensive and in the US property owners pay for local schools. It's not hateful or meanspirited to want a decent life and a job that pays enough to have a roof over your head. The bottom line is that when you have people streaming into the country who are used to third world living standards and are willing to work for pennies on the dollar, your own poor and working classes can't compete unless they immiserate themselves to a similar level.
Then there are the local economic effects. The US is the largest source of remittances in the world. Billions upon billions flow out of this country every year from immigrant workers to their families back home. If you are small business owner in a small town with a factory that employs locals, those locals come to your store and have a certain portion of their paycheck to spend. Then you take the money you make and spend it at other places in town. This is the basic economics of how money gets moving in the local economy, and how a rising tide can lift all boats. What happens if the local union goes on strike, and the factory brings in illegals as scab labor and then keeps them on, paying them let's say 60% of what they were paying the union. Well, that's 40% less money being spent around your town to being with, and 40% more going into the factory owner, which these days is probably some constellation of investors in wealthy zipcodes scattered throughout the country. Then let's say the immigrants send 30% of their paycheck back to their country of origin. Well now you're down to 42%.
What does that do to the local economy? What happens to the mom and pop shops on main street? The restaurants? They get gutted, then the real estate gets bought dirt cheap by a mega-corporation that turns everything into the same bunch of corporate chains. When I was a kid and you went around to different towns sure there was a McDonalds at the big intersection, but the town itself was all small businesses owned by the people who lived there. Increasingly that's not the case - everything is corporate owned.
Foreigners often see this as a race thing for some reason but it's not. Trump has the highest support among ethnic minorities for a Republican in my lifetime, and it grows every year. The growth has been especially strong among Hispanic voters, with Trump coming within an inch of winning an outright majority of Hispanics in 2024, a record level of support. Black support is also growing, and these groups especially approve of Trump on immigration. This is a large part of why Democrats are losing voters - back when Bernie stood a chance and was wildly popular (also with Hispanics), he said that open borders were 'a Koch Brother's proposal'. Cesar Chavez, the famous Mexican-American civil rights activist and labor organizer, campaigned heavily against illegal immigration while he worked to unionize largely Mexican farm workers in the US, rightly seeing them as scab labor who would break strikes and suppress wages.
Our media loves to frame this as some sort of mean-spirited racial issue, but it just isn't, and their constant insistence on doing so is why pretty much only decrepit boomers watch corporate media anymore - their ratings are in the toilet, and what viewers they have live in a dementia-addled fog. But I feel like people outside the US don't have the reality in front of their face all the time, and so only have the news to go by and get an incredibly distorted picture of what the country is like and how people feel. Take this:
Trump's popularity is in abusing the mentally unwell
This mostly comes from a single instance back around 2016 about which the media shamelessly lied. Trump was talking about people dancing/cheering in New Jersey as the towers came down on 9/11. A reporter, Serge Kovaleski, criticized him for this. Trump mocked Kovaleski, as he had written an article about it himself, in the exact same way he's mocked other people that he's portrayed as incompetent in his little Borscht-belt act: by flailing his arms around with a vacant look on his face. He's done this same gesture for a general and for Ted Cruz when he waffled about waterboarding, it's one of his canned routines. The media clipped that moment and ran article after article about how Trump 'mocked a disabled reporter'. They cite it in just about every article they've written over the last ten years. The public walked away with the idea the Mr. Kovaleski was someone with Downs Syndrome or some sort disability which Trump was mimicking.
This is Serge Kovaleski: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSU2KBQnXOAL_puTbvdFcRHNAif101VO4VQBg&s
He has a completely normal face and mannerisms. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a condition which causes stiff joints and limited mobility. He's a normal, intelligent guy with a hand which is stuck in an awkward position. Someone who wanted to mock his disability would do the precise opposite of wildly gesticulating and waving his hands around his head. In some of the most breathtakingly dishonest articles, the outlets would take a freeze frame of Trump's wild flailing at a point where his hand was in a position that most approximated that of Kovaleski's. In reality, Trump was mocking either incompetent factchecking or outright journalistic malfeasance. The 'mocking a disability' angle was a welcome opportunity to distract people from their own shoddy reporting, which was at the time on full display.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I am not a corporatist.For me, the state and God come before any corporate interest.Like in my eyes the Musks and Gates should drop their ego and greed for the good of the nation(s) they are citizens and residents of (ideally both) without hesitation.
I feel like you are operating under the common misconception that corporatism as practiced in Portugal had anything to do with modern business corporations. Both words come from the same Latin root (corp=body) but have nothing to do with each other. Corporations derive from that root because they are fictional bodies created and empowered by a legal system to shield their owners from liability.
When used in corporatism, the root refers to corporate groups in another sense (unions, agricultural estates, professional organizations, guilds, universities, military) which engage in cooperation which is mediated by the state, with each of these 'bodies' sending representatives to present their various interests when there is a dispute about resource allocation. It is an integral part of Catholic social teaching which emphasizes class cooperation, as opposed to zero-sum competition or class conflict. Nothing to do with modern corporations at all.
He even banned women leaving the cou try without fathers allowing it. He banned nurses marrying
I really don't see this as severe at all considering the modern paradigm under which we operate, in which women have an extremely difficult time raising children, something most of them want to do but can't because a two-income household is now the norm. If anything, Salazar offered an eminently sensible alternative - either work in your profession or become a mother - but he took the hard stance that the expectation that a women should raise children and work is not something that should ever be allowed to be normalized. Being an economist, he likely foresaw the inevitable results of that: cratering wages in respect to cost of living, the disruption of family formation, and an essential doubling of working class exploitation and the class conflict/hatreds that this would engender. Not to mention all the intangible value that would be wiped out - women serve a vital social function in any society and are often the glue that ties a community together. If they need to work fulltime to survive, those communities often suffer from alienation and dysfunction.
Created:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Hasan is a shallow shill as far as I have seen.
All three are, but Hasan at least appears to be aware of it.
Created:
Destiny was retarded enough to insert himself into a debate between two actual scholars on opposite sides of an issue and make a complete ass of himself. He seems like your best bet. Vaush and Hasan seem smart enough to realize that they would not thrive in a formal debate setting with a prepared opponent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
Just played the Suikoden I & II remaster. Great games that really stand the test of time, and overall faithful remasters. Was very nostalgic.
Created: