Victimatus virtus non est

Caribbean immigrant to UK / Long posts tagged #long or #long post / Officially mentally unwell // Please don't hostile ping me into any arguments, or hostile ping others to see my posts.

[asofteredge]

hey everyone, just curious:

what is everyone's criteria for blocking people?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Trolls and harassment, usually. Including pre-emptively, if I see them trying to troll someone else.

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

omg

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I kept thinking about the similarity every time I listen to the podcast.

[grapnel]

An example of why one should use the Oxford comma.

[segamascott]

okay so here's the thing about 50,000 people vs 1 ceo of a utility company

[segamascott]

technofascist surveillance state actually the have fun with ai was just them selling it to the public ☺️

[generallemarc]

Y'all wouldn't know fascism if it screamed "death to Israel" in your ear. You wanna blame someone, blame the governments that are funneling all the incentives they possibly can, in the form of our money, towards this bubble.

[brazenautomaton]

"This might happen, therefore, it happened and had only a single cause and that cause was an intentional act of fascism."

The third-party company that was selling electricity to the energy utility that served the California part of Lake Tahoe said it would not re-up its contract and the utility needed to find a new provider. "There is a lot of industrial development up in the Reno area we get way more from serving, which includes data centers," was one of the multiple reasons given for doing that. The cost and difficulty of power transmission across northern Nevada was another.

This is a normal thing. California and Nevada are two different states with different utilities, and Nevada said "we're redirecting to business in Nevada that need electricity." They gave California ample time to find a new provider of electricity.

Of course, the state of California will not let them find a new source of electricity in time because it is California and hates the concept of functional infrastructure.

[enriquemzn262]

And so, today is my birthday, this guy is officially 35 now!

[enriquemzn262]

Go to paypal.me/EnriqueManzanoRomero and type in the amount. Since it’s PayPal, it's easy and secure. Don’t have a PayPal account? No worrie

In case anyone wants to send a gift! My last birthday where my priority is myself and not my future kid, at least for a good few years!

[generallemarc]

Bro, they're already showing those bald guys! One was in the hospital in the pilot!!

I've forgotten their whole deal but that's such a cool little thing, because at best that'd be a very minor "huh, that guy looks weird" reaction that nobody would pay any attention to unless they'd already seen the show and knew what seeing someone like that meant! Imagine that-a show that plans ahead for what its overarching story is. Fringe really was just X Files But We Get Answers For Shit.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

I used to have bookmarks for a blog that listed every episode's sightings.

[dertaglichedan]

[simon-newman]

See what he meant?

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Hey, does anyone remember when anti-Immigration folks were doing setting immigrants' stuff - like their homes - on fire in Belfast a few weeks ago?

Except it wasn't for actually saying or doing anything, it was because they were mad one particular immigrant tried to murder a white man.

Even though he was already in jail.

[turtleduck-inc]

this is just a blatant "no u".

[siryouarebeingmocked]

Yes, I am pointing out certain people's possibly inconsistent and partisan standards for behavior, in response to their implied claims about how people should behave.

Oh, and also, I explicitly oppose both.

I hope nobody reading would go "wait, no, it's only okay to set things on fire to terrorize people when we're doing it, not when it's used against us."

EDIT:added "possibly" and the previous sentence.

[mysharona1987]

[lizluvscupcakes]

To anyone confused- he said he’d give money to anyone who could give him a concrete action plan, then the UK called his bluff and showed him one and now he’s leaving them on read.

[daysleftofsecondterm]

Good LORD, the notes on this post are SICKENING. Your mothers raised you better than the way you’re behaving.

[amir-of-choccymilk-elias]

6 billion helps

if you have 6 billion dollars lying around it should go to feeding people

i don’t care if they gave him a fake empty useless plan

i don’t care if 6 billion dollars doesn’t fix everything

my fucking god he’s a trillionare he won’t miss it he doesn’t need it

dying starving children need it

6 billion is a lot of money and IT. FUCKING. HELPS.

the comments on this post disgust me

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>if you have 6 billion dollars lying around it should go to feeding people

Most of Elon's net worth is stock options. It's in companies. With employees.

It is literally already feeding people.

In fact, lots of working-class Tesla employees recently became millionaires because of their stock options.

>i don’t care if they gave him a fake empty useless plan

People on your team are the ones who are mad at him for not throwing his money at the plan, which they blindly assume would've worked.

He said he wanted the plan to be publicly disclosed and the books to be public, and the guy he was talking about refused.

At this point, (collective) you're essentially reduced to throwing a tantrum and ignoring any counterarguments.

>my fucking god he’s a trillionare he won’t miss it he doesn’t need it

Except OP - and that nontroversy - was long before he was a trillionaire.

>6 billion is a lot of money and IT. FUCKING. HELPS.

Why exactly should anyone trust you, when you admitted you don't actually care what happens to the money as long as it's supposedly helping and it's coming from someone you hate?

In reality, a lot of financial aid to help developing countries is embezzled. Which can cause lots of damage, especially when it's uncovered.

Such as freezing aid.

So blindly throwing other people's money at the problem demonstrably makes things worse.

And the US already spends a lot more than 6 billion every year. So does the UK. And France. And Germany. Sweden, Italy, and Holland all donate close to that much individually.

If gigantic countries donating much more aren't getting it done, why do you think another measley 6 bill will magically tip the scale?

[the-davest-of-uncles]

They don't care about feeding the hungry. They just want to hurt people they hate.

[essbei]

If he threw 6 billion at a fake empty useless plan then, by definition, this still wouldn't feed anyone.

And now you have up to 6 new billionaires not feeding the hungry.

[demonofbabylon]

pro prison leftists are so funny to me because i'll say something like "perhaps it is inhumane to send people to knife island where they must compete in the knife games" and someone will respond, thinking they've destroyed my argument, "I get not sending drug users to knife island, but are you really proposing we don't send (whispers) ...pedophiles to knife island? what else would you have us do with them?"

[needabetternamelater]

And yet you still didn't say what you wanted to happen. They also asked about involuntary confinement of all kinds, not just 'current American prison'

[fierceawakening]

Exactly what I want to know. What SHOULD have happened with Epstein? If we shouldnt have sent him anywhere, how should we have made sure he didn’t harm anyone else, given that the previous time he wasn’t sent to knife island he continued abusing girls?

Making fun of me for asking this doesn’t get me any closer to figuring out what your answer is, Demon.

[needabetternamelater]

So congrats, @demonofbabylon, you go in my queue as yet another dodge. At this point, I'm starting to think the prison abolitonsits can't answer this because they don't actually know. We all know how prison reform works but we were asking how prison aboliton would work.

[doom-ocean]

I'm assuming the line of thinking is the same one they use when talking about communism 1 - destroy the bad thing 2 - ??? 3 - ??? 4 - utopia!

They only care about the end result they fantasize about, anything in between now and then are minor details that you don't need to worry about.

[sawbuckplus]

[gopfails]

Source

[generallemarc]

Me when I blindly assume everyone killed in police shootouts did nothing wrong to tell the people who survived actual fascism that they don't know what fascism is.

[gopfails]

They shot him infront of his child and dragged his corpse out into the street

They literally got away with executing a man in broad daylight and murdered a woman cause she was rude to them.

You're a vile person

[generallemarc]

Yes, how awful I am for not blindly taking your screenshots and very unbiased description as accurate, which you're providing in the context of saying that actual survivors of fascism are wrong about what fascism is and you, the privileged one who lives in a liberal democracy and is free to call the state whatever they want, know better. Y'all spend your time shrieking about ZioNazis while telling survivors of actual fascism to shut up when they disagree with you.

[gopfails]

Oh cool so now you're LYING about dead people. Very religious of you so tolerate and kind.

You're going to hell

[generallemarc]

Yes indeed, I'm going to hell for lying, which I did when I said absolutely nothing about any specific person beyond "you're just assuming all of these people were innocent of anything and not dangerous". Show me where I lied about a dead person. Please.

[nonenosome2]

"She was rude to them"

Damn. That is a weird way of saying she hit a cop with her car.

I'm sure the others are equally unbiased descriptions.

[syabm]

If this is the same troll I've seen before, this isn't even remotely the first time I've seen them lie about the Good incident.

Like the time they claimed the ICE agents weren't clearly cops by saying the ID patches were unreadable smudges.

...Based exclusively on one blurry, low-res video.

Of course, given how dedicated they are, I assume they're either a paid troll or just plain mental, so

are on the table.

Trying to drive your car with a cop reaching in the window automatically puts that cop in danger, and I don't think I've seen seen any of them acknowledge that.

So even if we ignore the cop who was already in front of her telling her to stop when she started moving forward, what she did still could've killed a cop.

I think she panicked and lost her head, but that's still on her.

[mitchfynde]

Is self-defense the reason given for the shooting? Yes.

Did the agent survive? Yes.

Did the driver survive? No.

What was the physical danger the driver faced? A firearm.

What was the physical danger the agent faced? A 2-ton SUV.

Was the agent within at least a few feet of the vehicle before it started moving? Yes.

Did shooting the driver immediately halt the momentum of the 2-ton vehicle? No.

Would there be a reasonable expectation that shooting the driver would immediately halt the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle? No.

Is getting out of the way of a moving vehicle the best way to not be hit by that moving vehicle? Yes.

Does getting out of the way of a moving vehicle require shooting a gun? No.

Is it possible that aiming and shooting a gun will actually delay getting out of the way of a moving vehicle? Yes.

Was the agent holding a gun in his right hand and a phone in his left hand? Yes.

Did he drop either his phone or his gun throughout the entire altercation? No.

Did he shoot her at least two more times through the driver's side window while he was next to the vehicle? Yes.

Were there other people near the agent when he fired his gun? Yes.

Was the vehicles accelerator pegged after he shot her? Yes.

Did that cause the vehicle to speed down a neighborhood street until it collided with other cars where its engine continued to redline even after it was stopped? Yes.

Was that a potential danger to the general public? Yes.

Taken from DarkMatter2525's analysis of the situation. These are the facts of the matter. Shooting her did not stop her vehicle and yet he still survived. Shooting her directly endangered surrounding officers and any civilians in the area.

I can see from a police standard, arguing this was a fair shoot based on self-defense due to the complicated nature of self-defense and policing in general. But the facts of the matter do not speak kindly towards Jonathan Ross's actions as an intelligent human being.

As far as her actions being on her, maybe, but she had pretty strong justifications for everything she did here as well when you consider the actual facts. ICE certainly is something worth opposing. Opposing it puts you in danger. ICE under Trump is not necessarily beholden to law and can basically do what they want to you, as far as we can tell. Would you want to be captured by what you viewed as the gestapo of a fascist government as a visible minority?

She did her best to avoid harming anyone to the point that her vehicle didn't end up harming anyone even without her controlling it anymore. Renee Good did put herself in danger though. Of course she did. By protesting a fascist government's state police. That's hardly something that I think anyone should be killed for. She's a hero.

PS: Don't reblog my Israel posts again or you'll get more of these. Don't mistake me for one of you just because I'm not a leftist.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>Was the agent within at least a few feet of the vehicle before it started moving? Yes.

In other words, he was close enough to make it extremely difficult to move out of the way in time.

The possibility people defending Good have consistently ignored.

Just like ignoring how she chose to drive forward with a cop directly in front of her. She backed up, and shifted into drive, and then hit the gas.

Y'all love to look for any excuse to hate on the cop, while ignoring the multiple extremely stupid decisions Good made which would not have ended well even if the cop did an acrobatic pirouette out of danger.

>Would there be a reasonable expectation that shooting the driver would immediately halt the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle? No.

I don't know about you, but if a car is coming directly at me and I don't think I have time to dodge, I rate my chances much higher if the driver's foot is off the gas pedal.

>Was that a potential danger to the general public? Yes.

So you'll get mad at the cops for shooting her and leaving the vehicle uncontrolled and therefore a danger to others, but not her for trying to drive away with multiple cops closely surrounding her, including one reaching into the car.

And, like I said, towards one right in front of her.

Interesting priorities.

>PS: Don't reblog my Israel posts again or you'll get more of these. Don't mistake me for one of you just because I'm not a leftist.

So you decided to come after a completely unreleated post just so you could own me, because I silently agreed with you?

I reblog posts from people I strongly disagree with on other various issues all the time. Left, right, center, authoritarian, libertarian, anarchist.

If you feel so strongly about this, I could just block you now so I never reblog any of your posts, even by accident, ever again.

Would you like that?

[mitchfynde]

Do you really expect me to take you seriously when your framing is that he had to do an "acrobatic pirouette" to get out of danger?

We've all seen the footage. He had to take like 1-2 steps back. It was not at all difficult for him to get out of the way. In fact, that was already in my fucking post. He spent more time drawing his weapon than attempting to get out of the way.

I'm not ignoring the choices she made. It seems far more likely to me that she genuinely feared for her life than he did. She acted accordingly. Her merely trying to escape arrest doesn't justify her being executed and I know that's true because you guys rarely claim it does. Instead you twist the facts of what happened even though we've all seen the damn video from like 5 angles.

The car was not coming directly at him. He had time to dodge. You're just lying and it's fucking insane to me.

Yes, I came at you for silently agreeing with me. Fuck you. No, I'm not going to block you. I want at least some of you to be exposed to outside ideas. Emphasis on OUTSIDE ideas, not my one single conservative-coded issue that we just happen to agree on.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

So, I skipped to the end.

That's okay. I'll just block you anyway. It's the only way to guarauntee I don't forget your not-so-polite request not to reblog from you.

As I said, I get plenty of exposure to ideas I disagree with, all the time. I created this blog in the first place partially to keep those arguments off my main.

And I'm not a conservative, as much as bigots (classic definition) would like to pigeonhole me.

Also, may I point out the rather blatant hypocrisy of saying that I shouldn't silently reblog you just to agree with you because of your own partisan Guilt-by-Association thinking, but implying I'm still obliged to listen to you when you disagree with me?

[beardedmrbean]

[mascula-sappho]

what a lot of people say is anti-arab racism: borders existing, being correctly labeled a colonial culture, being told Arabs are not the ancient Canaanites + ancient Mesopotamians + ancient Egyptians all at the same time, being asked to speak a language other than Arabic, Jews + Kurds + Persians existing in proximity to an Arab or doing anything such as singing or talking or dancing, wondering where all that gold came from, being called out on cultural appropriation of head wrap styles from Jews and rugs from Persians and henna styles from Somalis (among many others these are just examples), having to be around religions other than Islam.

what Persians, Jews, Kurds, Druze, etc. agree is racism: not being allowed to speak native language, culture erased, land stolen, children murdered, thousands jailed, hijabs mandatory, murdered for resisting or practicing culture or religion, historical artifacts and temples built over or destroyed or disappeared, religion stolen, people claiming to be the "true" inheritors of your culture while killing your people, etc.

anyway all West Asians who are not Arab and will never be Arab, I love you, I love you, I love you. Never give up.

[loulooser]

Can’t wait to not sleep at all on September 11th

[spinostarz]

i know ur from the uk(?) but reading this as an american is really really funny

[loulooser]

why 😭 it’s about twenty one pilots???? Their new album is out sep 12th????

[jarsjam]

THERE'S TWENTY ONE THIS TIME???

[thydungeongal]

I have posted before about how sometimes well-meaning attempts at running D&D without some of the more unfortunate dynamics can often backfire but in a way where most people don't even register it backfiring. Because when you take the step of "oh D&D's various 'evil humanoids' don't just exist in a vacuum and given the renfaire colonialism on display it's kind of impossible not to read them as somewhat racialized" many people will then go "okay but we still need some people who player characters should be allowed to kill guilt-free, so let's replace 'orcs' with 'bandits' because killing bad criminal people is perfectly ideologically neutral." At that point it's like "okay so your characters are no longer the racist kill squad, now they're just the Tough on Crime Vigilantes."

But I feel I should make clear that D&D the game itself is not exactly at fault here: like, okay, it is sort of at fault in the sense that it is a game of fantasy killing people with swords and magic. And it is easier for people to accept the killing with people with swords and magic part when they can imagine that their characters are at least to a degree justified. That is sort of just built into the game (and the game has built into its lore varying levels of making the fantasy of killing certain types of guy justifiable).

But D&D is not at fault for making people go "okay so it's bad when you kill orcs simply because they're orcs. It's better when you kill people who are bandits, who are a class of evil criminals where killing them is actually wholesome and sensible." Like, yeah, most people probably don't think about it that deeply, but the reason people don't think about it that deeply is ultimately ideological.

And the ideology is basically "it is bad to be racist but it's good to be a tough on crime vigilante."

[krongbly]

I don't disagree with this post but I do think there's an important element being left out here which is that 9 times out of 10 players are engaging in combat primarily as a form of self defense. Most of the time it's less of "we can kill these people because they're criminals and that makes it ideologically neutral" and more "these NPCs are trying to kill us and the most effective way to stop them right now is to reduce their hit points to 0 which, if they fail their death saves, means they will die."

I think "vigilantes tough on crime" is actually kind of a bad descriptor for how most parties operate. This definitely varies wildly from table to table but I think for the *average* table there's honestly a solid chance that either your players are friends with at least one criminal NPC or even that they themselves are criminals. There's even an entire class who's fantasy is "criminal."

[thydungeongal]

I don't think the self defense point actually holds true in a meaningful sense.

In older editions of D&D, which were much clearer on the expected gameplay being "go into the dungeon and steal the stuff," there wasn't really this layer there. The rules for combat were generally quite harsh on player characters so combat was certainly something they didn't want to get into too casually, but ultimately the player characters were just going into the dang monsters' house and stealing their stuff. The monsters were arguably the ones acting in self-defense (but they're evil so who cares).

But in the WotC editions the self-defense justification is still fraught because modern D&D especially is an action game. It's a game where characters mostly have access to various methods of visiting violence upon their environs and where the gameplay itself rewards them for violence, because combat is the main source of experience as written in all WotC editions of the game and characters primarily grow in combat effectiveness.

The self-defense angle I feel is not supported by the game's rules itself, but is more of a narrative contrivance introduced by groups to make their characters feel more heroic.

My friend @tenleaguesbeneath once described it as, and I am paraphrasing, "characters hunting things for sport but the things attack them first so they can claim self-defense." Characters want to get into fights (because that's where the rewards are), characters primarily grow in terms of being able to get into cooler fights, but because getting into fights on purpose isn't heroic there's an angle of "those goblins started it" to make the characters feel more heroic.

I don't think this is a bad thing per se. It is one way to make the power fantasy of D&D feel less like the characters are violent thugs and more like heroes. But like it is basically a group of mercenaries going into a warzone, they can't really say "well we didn't really expect to have to kill anyone on our mission, but sadly, circumstances conspired against us." Fighting is what the game wants them to do and I don't think anyone is wrong for wanting to portray the player characters as engaging in self-defense, but it's only self-defense through a very crooked lens imo.

[lumpout]

Linking this to the modern "revenge porn" action movies like John Wick and Nobody.

The self defense/revenge motivation is a fig leaf for indulging in gleeful violence. While modern DnD fictionally positions the party as the righteous castle-doctrine empowered heroes; we should at the very least be critical of why it is doing that. It's functionally identical to the fantasy of "what would I do if a bunch of terrorists/bank robbers burst into the room?" Just because there's an in-universe reason as to why you get have to murder all those people in flashy and fun ways does not mean that it isn't what you (the player) sat down at the table to do.

[jambeast]

And the key thing to remember is that violence is awesome (in fiction) and we don't have to justify it to anyone.

[brazenautomaton]

Yeah this post is horseshit and the ideology behind it is soul poison. If you demand a Maoist struggle session for your D&D campaign for its ideological implications then 387.44 million miles of wafer-thin circuits is not enough to express the extent to which you need to go fuck yourself. The assumptions and demands you make are based in a concept of human experience that only exists to serve your politics. This is not how human beings engage with art, this is not how human beings engage with stories, this is not how human beings engage with games. You are suffering under this monstrous worldview and you are monstrous in attempting to inflict it on others.

You are not revealing a secret pro-vigilantism argument, you unfathomably vast stumblefuck. You are revealing that you have conditioned other people to be afraid of speaking up against you and they're unable to fight your openly malevolent bad-faith attacks, so when you threaten them with Unpersoning for some game mechanic or setting detail you don't understand, instead of standing up for themselves and telling you to fuck off they shuffle to the closest equivalent of it that they think won't get them yelled at.

[dragon-in-a-fez]

ever wandered around in an open world video game and noticed there are no children? no elderly people? no fat people? no one using a wheelchair? no one with a guide dog? this is supposed to feel like a living world and there's so much of life that's just not there

[dragon-in-a-fez]

lots of people in the notes being like "open world games don't have kids/wheelchair users because if they did the players could kill them!" and I am unrolling my papyrus scroll with my curated reading list on the topic of "oppressed groups being imagined as symbols of innocence and vulnerability that must not be harmed in public instead of acknowledged as real people who are often suffering abuse in private, and why that is bad"

[dragon-in-a-fez]

like yeah I'm aware that our culture would go collectively apeshit over kid NPCs being shot up in GTA. I'm also aware that that very same culture is broadly fine with parents beating their actual real life kids, and that most people, even most people who would never hit their own kids, think other real life kids getting hit is not their business to be enraged about. so maybe like. there's something weird going on there.

[switch-up-snowfox]

what culture broadly are you thinking of???

[cookingwithroxy]

Honestly, this is a position so stupid that I'm stuck thinking about the whole 'Do you ever think about how, in open world games, you only ever see 30 models of NPC's?' or 'Do you ever think about how, in an open world game, there will be more combat npc's than non-combat NPC's?'

The statement 'Considering the limited processing power available to computers, games prefer to place npc's the player is likely to interact with in the world, rather than ones they are less likely to interact with' would be all that one would ever need. And while you can couple that with 'People responded exceptionally badly to people making fun of/assaulting a Suffragette in RDR2' and extrapolate a limitation on being willing to put said NPC's in games, all you really have to do in this specific conversation is point out that child abuse is a startlingly rare event (at 7.7% per 100000 each year in the US) and realize that this is not so much a conversation about NPC's at all and more of a 'OP wants to have an argument and is looking for a proxy to justify whatever yelling they wish to do'.

[carlosmarcosapproved]

[yokelfelonking]

No. No, I wasn't. The people who told me that communism was bad also told me that segregation was bad.

Also I am capable of coming to my own conclusions about these things regardless of who told me about them and I have determined that communism is an absolute dogshit ideology.

[brazenautomaton]

"It's not my fault that all you have to do to 'spread anti-communist propaganda' is open a history book and read what's inside."

Also what the fuck does Videl have to do with this.

[uncle-beanbag-mojave]

[beaked-whales-in-exile]

Oldest commie trick in the book, using race whataboutism to sow doubt about America. These fuckers will use any end to destabilize a country.

[simon-newman]

"What does Videl have to do with this?"

Well, she is the daughter of Satan...

[eric-coldfire]

They're pretending Communists didn't segregate.

[goth-queen]

[the-based-brit]

@cookingwithroxy @mama-germany

[cookingwithroxy]

Makes me think about spending time back at the family farm!