To make matters worse, these people will rant and rail against Muslims until you point out that the mass importation of Muslims is almost exclusively lobbied for by …. Jewish organizations, the Israelis regularly talk about importing as many Muslims as they can into the west, and the Muslim countries currently fighting Israel are fighting to stay in their own countries.
If you point this out they morph into both sides guys so fast it’ll make your head spin, and mUh both sides only results in rhetorically supporting one side, the one being actively supported by and integrated into the US military, billions of dollars in military “aid” and weapons and contracts. The one that has insidiously wormed its way into multiple governments around the world, through the cult of Zionism.
Mamdani is a slick as oil grifter yes, but when you understand that the brunt of this MUh IsLaM MuH MusLiMs MuH ShArIa LaW In ArKanSaS rhetoric directly comes from Hasbara campaigns to justify wider aggression in the Middle East, it gets so fucking tiresome. None of these dudes can say “I want Muslims to stay in Muslim countries, therefore I will not counter signal their efforts to do so”. Nope, we get “both sides” bullshit, and they still get owned by Jews. They still get mass imports of Muslims into culturally incomparable countries. They’re functionally retarded and can’t even see how they perpetuate their own rape and replacement because they can’t even support Muslims who want to stay in their own countries because that would require understanding that it’s in our interest to do so.
LMFAOOO I said “both sides retard” and you literally tripped over your own dick to get to this post, I am the retard whisperer
You’re right man, I definitely said “do nothing about Muslims raping and murdering people” you GOT ME that’s definitely what I said you angry little faggot lol. You’re totally right, individualists who make it no secret that we strongly believe in physical removal have no solution to “help, this Pakistani is raping me!”
I’ll explain it to you like you’re fucking retarded
when you get ants in your house, you don’t kill every single individual one at a time or only get rid of the ones you see, and then every time they come back repeat that process over and over again forever. They just make more ants. Or maybe you do! You seem stupid
A person with some sense eliminates the source of the problem, and in this case, the people letting them into your house are Jews. Does that make sense? Does that penetrate the extra chromosome factory that is your brain? I can’t tell if this is the result of you just being fucking French and therefore genetically incapable of understanding concepts like “this is how you actually advocate for yourselves” or so unbelievably stupid that this really simple concept sent you into a complete frogman rage.
Why don’t you have a nice croissant get yourself some carbs so you’re not so fucking hangry you dumb bitch.
I think it’s wild that you both sides guys get this fucking mad at the mere suggestion that you stop letting yourselves get fucked in the ass by heebs, and this is my exact point. You’re furious at the simple solution to your problem because it’s not the non-solution you’ve been sold by yahudi devils, the one you can’t seem to actually implement because the tiny hats won’t let you 😂😂😂😂😂
Fuckin mindraped idiot
>Youre too dumb to care about more than one issue
>Is so fucking mad about being asked to acknowledge that the only issue he cares about is caused by another, no let’s just fight the symptoms forever!
Frenchman too dumb and mindraped to understand simple concept, many such cases. This is why your average groyper nationalist is literally incapable of achieving anything, they are so fucking stupid that you can get them worked up over something like Muslims being imported into their country and they won’t do a thing about the Jews who are doing it. This is how you end up arguing that Jeffrey Epstein had “aura” and was actually based for trafficking women.
How precisely are property rights bad in the US? For all this country’s flaws, I was under the impression that individual property rights are relatively robust.
And yes I do expect you to come back with exceptions (which prove the rule, depending on what it is).
Property taxes, estate taxes, emminent domain, and that's just the big three.
It's functionally on par with China's "you own the building but only lease the land" definition of home ownership. Americans just have a few more layers of polite abstraction between "I own this house" and the State showing up to kick you out and shoot your dog because you didn't pay their protection racket, or someone who owns a senator wanted to build something else there.
Basically, genuine ownership of almost anything is a polite fiction in the US. Land most of all. The only real difference between it and a "communist" nation is that they allow us the polite fiction since so many people buy into it, and the government takes slightly more effort to hide that it's the one running the massive companies that buy up huge swathes of property.
Odd trivia I learned watching a Yale series on the old testament that makes a lot of retroactive sense
So in the ancient mediterranean, the concepts of mana or qi hadn’t made their way west yet. This is to say, that the fundamental theory of magic was different culturally and spiritually from the roleplaying game influenced concepts we take for granted today. All magic was thought of to be, in a sense, intercessory. All magic had to be channeled through a divine entity, that is.
And so that’s the real reason the Bible forbids magic; Yah sees it as idolotry. Don’t go through Ba'al or Marduk or Isis, go through Yah.
And that’s why magic’s ok if you call it a miracle - such as all the times Moses showed up Pharoah’s magicians. Since magic was through a divine being, that was Yah humiliating not the Egyptian magicians but the very Egyptian pantheon itself.
Huh, I thought this was obvious. (Also, I have written fantasy books in which all magic is intercession, and I thought that this was one of the standard magic system variants.)
I’d like to pontificate and philosophize a bit on that.
If there is (if there were?) impersonal ‘mana’ stuff flowing along a ley line or whatever in the natural world, using it would arguably be more rightly called engineering than magic. After all, this is roughly what a compass is doing!
The assertion “All magic is intercession” sounds like it might be an optional worldbuilding decision for a fantasy novel, but state it in reverse, “Only intercession is magic”, and I think it starts to look more necessarily true. Non-intercessory things tend to get operationalized and moved into the ‘not magic’ bin. They become branches of science, technology and engineering.
If something like an RPG mage existed that had a specific number of spell points, or even spell slots to go with D&D in particular, I expect it would very quickly become a garden-variety boring job, lose its magical luster, equilibriate to a market wage, and the spell capability advancement would have a standard industry handbook with a set of tables akin to those in the physics handbook. I mean, look at these two tables on Electron Shells and Bard Magic, they don’t look out of place next to each other:
This is an interesting take (and I’m glad to have had it cross my path), but I think it’s missing a critical piece of the puzzle.
You don’t need an intercessory agent, demonic or otherwise, for magic to feel like magic rather than science or engineering. You just need it to be dependent on the personal qualities of the magician.
Okay it's a funny skit but I'm gonna be serious about this for a moment because I think it's interesting - the thing about this is it does actually make sense if you go back to the source material.
A lot of stuff that's considered canon in star wars is actually kind of ascended fanon. Like, if you really dig into it, it's remarkable how much of the lightsaber-juggling, movie-retreading atmosphere of pop culture/the expanded universe Lucas incorporated into the prequel trilogy, likely without realising.
Example: Strictly according to the original trilogy, does Master Yoda possess a lightsaber? I would say no. It is significant that in a film, where every shot is deliberately planned, we never see a lightsaber in relation to Yoda, and the one time he acknowledges Luke's it is dismissively; "Your weapons, you will not need them." By implication, Yoda is a Buddha to Obi-Wan's warrior monk. Yoda is a teacher and a mystic, but he is not a warrior.
Force lightning is another of these things. You go back to the original trilogy, and there's a sense that the Force and what you can do with it is very personalised. Nobody but Palpatine throws lightning, not even his apprentice, and in turn nobody but Vader chokes people to death. Luke does learn the mind trick introduced by Obi-Wan, but that's part and parcel with Luke's growth into a compassionate warrior-philosopher who tries to solve conflicts nonviolently. Force Choke is not 'a dark side force power', it is Vader's power, a manifestation of his crushing authority and smothering presence.
Likewise, Force Lightning is not 'a dark side power', and it is not generic lightning. It is the Emperor's power, characteristic of his cruelty, his sadistic delight in corrupting and hurting other people. We can see this in how it is used. Force Lightning does not split steel or blast people off their feet or blow things up, like a real bolt of lightning - it transfixes Luke in agony, sends him reeling to the floor with torturous pain until he screams for his father's help.
Force Lightning is not a power of clean, straightforward energy blasts. It's a torture power. It's the power of wielding your hate and cruelty against someone with the deliberate goal of setting fire to their nerves and killing them slowly and painfully. Shit yeah it's evil as all get out, way more than the power to convince guards to look the other way rather than have to fight them.
This is similar to an argument why the original trilogy is a fantasy story, not a sci-fi story.
Sci-fi is focused on what it would mean for a setting if physics were different or a new continent was discovered or some other new power were introduced to the world and made generally available; "Good sci-fi predicts the car and great sci-fi predicts the traffic jam". There is something like amorality in sci-fi working out the consequences that are likely, logical, or possible, and one of those is often mass interest and mass production.
Whereas fantasy is focused on what it reveals about a character to have new power, and so we see that the Emperor uses the Force to fry people, whereas Obi-Wan uses the Force to avoid a fight with stormtroopers, telling us what kind of people they are. Fantasy is more focused on the moral aspect of how people choose to act, and because the specific powers are statements about a specific person, they can't be made on an assembly line and rolled out to everyone.
About the ascended fanon -- Obi-Wan uses the Jedi mind trick to make bored guards not look too closely at the 100th inspection of the day. Luke later uses it on a goon to make the goon bring an issue to his boss. Luke then tries to use the Jedi mind trick on the boss, Jabba the Hutt, and fails. This is a slight nudge, not "mind control", in the original trilogy.
If you read interviews with homicide cops, two things quickly become clear
It is really not all that hard to get away with murder. A basic amount of foresight and prep will get rid of enough evidence that the police either won't find the killer or will be unable to make the charge stick.
Despite this, most murders do get solved, because someone who decides that murder is the solution to their problems is probably not the kind of person to be levelheaded and careful enough to avoid getting caught.
I think something very similar is true of sockpuppet accounts. It's not that hard to make a convincing sockpuppet. However, people almost always make sockpuppets as a way of defending their egos, of making it look like they have more support than they actually do. And this passionate defense of someone the sockpuppet ostensibly doesn't know and has no reason to care about is a dead giveaway. So if you want to validate a sockpuppet you have to lose an argument to it. You have to get owned. Once it makes you look like an idiot, basically no one will ever suspect it again.
Unfortunately, by posting this, I've burned my only chance to actually do it. From now on, whenever you see me getting dunked on, you'll assume it's staged sockpuppet validation. and you'd be right. i have never lost an argument on this website. every single one was staged. i did not get owned. i did not get owned.
I know things are scary because they're going to strike us down with their powerful kicks, but here's what YOU (yes, YOU READING THIS RIGHT NOW) can do
shoutout to the words "overmorrow" and "ereyesterday". english losing these words was stupid. "the day after tomorrow" "the day before yesterday" clunky-ass constructions. revolting. i'm bringing overmorrow and ereyesterday back in my idiolect and there is nothing you can do about it
Public transportation lionization has gotta be the ultimate expression of statism, lol
"Oh yes daddy government, please tell me where I can go and when! I'm not like those filthy car people who just go wherever they please whenever they want, I need you to be in charge to feel safe and whole!"
The leftoid protest against the surveillance state is a little surprising, but I don't expect it to last long past the planned handover of the White House to blue team. Then questioning government power and expansionism will be bad again and we need Flock cameras and Palantir AI to protect us from the scary white supremacist militias.
See me, I don't give that much of a shit if they've done their paperwork, or what their genetics are, I just want them to fucking behave.
But they've proven they won't because they're culturally indoctrinated to believe behaving like relatively civilized human beings is impossible and undesirable, if not a completely foreign concept to their reality akin to noneuclidian geography. And we have enough subcultures like that here already.
It's funny how all my life I was taught that racism was only skin deep, that it was all about skin color. Whenever I hear something racist it's usually about a group of people on a cultural level.
Exactly. While genetics does cause variances in intelligence and aggression (how could it not), those are not the main controlling factors. The problem is cultural, and we're dealing with cultures where murder and theft are cultural mainstays rather than aberrations.
Abstract. Evolution has produced an astonishing array of organisms, but does it have limits and, if so, how are these overcome and how have
An interesting paper (Vermeij, 2015) on the "empty phenotypic space", i.e. the forms and adaptations that we do not see in the living world, possibly relevant to the convergence vs. contingency debate.
Some examples:
Wheels: some curled-up arthropods can roll around, and bacterial flagella and some parts of weevil legs rotate on their axis, but macroscopic wheels with a free axle do not exist, probably because smooth surfaces on which they'd be useful are rare and it would be difficult to grow them through embryonal development.
Animal-provided pollination and dispersal do not exist in water, with the possible exception of one species of fish-pollinated seagrass (which is a descendant of terrestrial plants). Presumably water is already good enough at carrying gametes and propagules that buying the services of an animal is a useless expense.
Mineral reef-building does not occur on land nor, more surprisingly, in freshwater. The reason for the latter is not clear, since there are enough mineral ions in freshwater to build shells. Boring of rock, shells, and wood in freshwater is also extremely rare though common in the sea.
Gelatinous plankton like salps or jellyfish (with few exceptions of the latter) is also not found in freshwater, probably because they can't survive dispersal between separate water bodies.
Endothermy ("warm blood") is generally not found in small aquatic animal, probably because water leeches away heat much faster than water, so aquatic endotherms (tunas, sharks, seals, whales) need to be bulky. On land, however, endothermy is found among tiny vertebrates and even insects.
There is no passive air-floating plankton, since air is not dense enough to support living tissue or dissolved organic matter by buoyancy. For that reason filter-feeding is also rare outside of water, while carnivorous plants are not found in the ocean (the water already carries enough nutrient). Aquatic plants do not produce wood as buoyancy is enough to keep them upright.
Large terrestrial animals do not specialize as scavengers (all mammals famous for scavenging also hunt actively); large carcasses are too spread out. All specialist scavengers on land are either very small, or flying.
Herbivory is rare among active fliers, because plant matter has a low energy density and takes a long time to digest. Herbivorous birds and insects are poor fliers or flightless, and the best fliers, like geese, are the ones that can take shelter in water.
Many more examples are only excluded from specific groups (e.g. live-bearing, despite being very common in reptiles, never appeared in birds, probably because the bird egg-shell is too mineralized to be retained in the womb as transition toward full live-bearing).
Even though the author calls them "forbidden phenotypes", only some of them are actually impossible (because they cannot evolve in the first place, or because they cost more energy than they're worth), and others simply never happened to evolve. At the end of the paper there is a list of phenotypes that would have been "forbidden" in the aftermath of the Cambrian Explosion and Ordovician diversification, but which appeared later, and they include
cutins, suberins, lignins, flavonoids, alkaloids, vascular systems, roots, leaves, rigid frameworks of stems and branches, nutrition complemented by animal matter, and basal growth in land plants; nitrogen-fixing symbiosis on land; animal-mediated dispersal/pollination; silk-producing, sound-emitting, flying, eusocial, terrestrial herbivorous, wood-boring, terrestrial shell-bearing and endothermic animals; embryos nourished within the body of an animal or plant parent; mineralized phytoplankton; and rock-excavating marine herbivores. [...] photosymbiotic and chemosymbiotic molluscs, the bivalved condition in gastropods, terrestrial life in gastropods and vertebrates, complex septa within the phragmocone of externally shelled cephalopods, internalization and loss of the shell in cephalopods, cementation to the substratum with a glue of calcium carbonate and organic matrix in several animal groups (gastropods, brachiopods, bivalves and barnacles), spines on shells of several groups (brachiopods, bivalves and brachiopods), mineralized tubes in polychaete annelids, mobility in bryozoans and pelmatozoan echinoderms, jaws and teeth in vertebrates, and vascular systems in brown and red algae. A vast diversity of potent venoms also lay in the future as part of the defensive and aggressive arsenal of many gastropods, cephalopods, aculeate Hymenoptera, vertebrates and land plants.
He also mentions phenotypes that were lost, but every listed adaptation seems to have survived in some group (e.g. complex spiny shells disappeared among cephalopods but survived in gastropods).
Macronectes giganteus @giantpetrel - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
ellievsbear
prguitarman
izzy806
andulkaphoto
amandla
tangentwithtanner
