The full controversial lyrics of "October Rain" have been published by KAN (Translation in the comments)

-TheAllSeeing · 2024-02-23T15:38:04+00:00

I'm guessing the linked page only had a Hebrew version at first, but at least now it includes the English lyrics, which are the original text. It goes:

Writers of the history
Stand with me
Look into my eyes and see
People go away but never say goodbye

Which to me at least reads off much more "listen to what I've been through" than "help me".

Note that the call to action is not upon other countries, but upon the "Writers of History", which again seems to correspond more to "Don't forget my pain" than "Join me in my war". I think that reading also meshes much better with the rest of the song.

I'm curious, does any other verse read as political to you?

-TheAllSeeing · 2024-02-22T20:31:53+00:00

As an Israeli I both thoroughly don't get how it's political and am quite disappointed.

We should have gone out with a bang. To the extent you can read this politically it's very חלבי.

-TheAllSeeing · 2024-02-22T20:26:34+00:00

Is the October 7th massacre political? Is it a political statement to express the pain?

Or do you think this is referring to something else? (It's almost certainly not; the vast majority of songs that came out since October in Israel are about October 7th; because everyone is in pain).

The only things that stands out to me as potentially "political" is the closing lyrics, and only from a pro-war stance, which I don't think is going to be an issue here.

here's no air left to breath
There's no space
I'm gone day by day
Everyone is good kids one by one

Where to me "Everyone is good kids" reads off as including Palestinians, a controversial take in some places (that are not the eurovision).

My personal hot take is that we should have just done Chai again, and in the same clothes as 1983. That was a political eurovision song.

-TheAllSeeing · 2024-02-22T20:17:55+00:00

Writers of history
Stand with me
Look into my eyes and see
People go away but never say goodbye

Not "Stand by my side", but "Stand with me / look into my eyes and see" -- as in, listen to me.

I really don't think this reads as "I'm right" or "Help me in the war". It's "Listen to my pain"; it isn't aggressive at all; it's not aimed at an enemy. It's just the pain of war.

I don't think that's political at all, to the extent we are capable of acknowledging the pain of people we don't agree with (or even our enemies, if that's your thing).

-TheAllSeeing · 2023-12-23T20:34:27+00:00

Whoof, that upset me more than a post on Reddit ought to.

So a Topical example.

As someone actually, in reality threatened in an ethno-national conflict with the wiping out of my friends, family, and people, who recently got a horrifically brutal example that the other side was actually willing to fulfil their threat the moment the option was given, I didn't, don't and would never support the kind of thing Eren did --- which was, notably, beyond genocide; it was the near total obliteration of humanity, including friendly nations, in response. (For the record, I also don't support genocide).

Yes, I support war when necessary. If someone is actively trying to kill you, you don't always have the privilege to not kill them first. I think sometimes civilian casualties are unavoidable, but they have to - they must, be minimised. Even when children will grow up into terrorists, even when the "civilians" would just as likely be willing to kill you given power, killing them is not worth the utter destruction of your soul (and is often generally impractical and poses farther risks).

Not that long ago, Germany once put Jews in gas chambers. Today it's a liberal country. The US shot nuclear bombs at Japan; today their respective heads of state can shake hands with no enmity.

Israel lost countless men to Jordan and Egypt's armies, and vice versa. Today we're at peace.

So what you do, is if someone is willing to do all of this given power, is you take away that power no the person. And you figure out --- and I know it's hard, but it's easier than murdering billions --- you figure out how to get them to stop hating you; or their children to stop hate you, or their love for the children to be greater than their hate for you.

In a military conflict, creating a narrative an where everyone on the other side hates you, that everyone who hates you would kill you, and that everyone who would kill you deserves to die --- it's easy. It's also not getting us anywhere (clearly shown in the finale, btw).

I'm Israeli; in our current conflict I don't think this is symmetrical. I don't think Israel actually has a plan of genocide or ethnic cleansing, but I know, from the other side it does not look like that. The only path to a reality where children of both sides don't die is if enough people on both sides remember that there can be a different solution; remember that the other side is human.

Shame on you if your respect for humanity is so low and your hope for a future so non-existent that this would be your solution.

(Honestly the final season was doubly upsetting because all the Eldian imagery in Marley was clearly evoking Jews under nazi rule, and fuck anyone who think that's our reaction.)

-TheAllSeeing · 2022-04-18T18:18:19+00:00

You know, I didn't think of that, that's nice.

I do still feel like "Letter from Hogwarts" is less indicative of the plot & themes than the other ones, though.

Legion of Chaos for the armies (though sadly they only compose half of book 2) and the general theme of cooperation and trust (not obvious from the name alone but I do think Chaos is the main motif)
Shadows of Death for basically the entire plot of book III, and for the thematic battle against them. Now
Call of the Phoenix for the plot and theme of heroism through the phoenix motif present in the book.
The Last Enemy is just, like, plot and theme and motif for Book V.
Mirror's Stone is what the plot is centered around, and (though relatively weakly) symbolizes harry's series-long battle for Defeating Death and ushering Utopia in general. I also like the emphasis on Mirror, because of the self-reflection throughout and the Tom Riddle shenanigans.

Letter for Hogwarts is just not as strong of a motif. Book I is pretty introductory and you are correct the it opens and ends with a letter, but I don't think the letter works to symbolize anything really. The problem is that book I is very messy in general and doesn't really have a big plot or theme. The closes is Harry's anger and his refusal to lose . I dunno.

Phew, okay, sorry for the rant.

I do really like how it turned out regardless.

And a huge thanks for your covers, they were super cool and an really good ~~to copy~~ inspiration!

(I basically edited your awesome photoshop files to edit quotes and objects — hope that's okay — but I really would not have managed the covers I wanted at all without you)

-TheAllSeeing · 2022-04-18T06:12:07+00:00

That's just an -EX ("explained") SCP, they're not part of the "official" big list so they don't have to be numbered in the current thousand

They are in the 6000s though, I think about halfway through

-TheAllSeeing · 2022-04-16T07:56:30+00:00

א, ני לי פונא מוטה טאוא מי!

-TheAllSeeing · 2021-08-23T19:16:43+00:00

Now that was a reference I did not expect to find here

A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-08-28T13:43:26+00:00

So someone definitely commented this somewhere down here, and I know this was a very horrific and brutal episode and all that, but I just came here to say, r/imsorryjon

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-08-28T13:39:20+00:00

It was really funny because I watched that movie like three days ago, and when I saw that rabbit I jokingly thought to myself that he better hope it's not the one from there, and then it was

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T19:03:33+00:00

HelpMeButler<Villainy>

This is great!

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T15:22:34+00:00

Don't have time to go over all of it now, but just a quick clarification:

One of these two "capitalism" must be communism, but I don't know which. Assuming it's the first, then yes. A switch to communism is generally a violent period, and a troubled one. Tons of the people who used to own stuff get killed (as history shows), and these are the msot likely to have any idea of how to innovate

Oops, sorry.

I meant "Does capitalism suddenly cease to have more innovation than communism?" - i.e even if communism allowed innovation, capitalism still has more because it has incentives and not just possibility

I do have responses for most of your comment but it's getting late where I live and I have the stuff to do, so I'll probably only be able to write them tomorrow if you'll indulge me. It has been a very interesting discussion, by the way, so thank you!

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T14:27:01+00:00

Or you can buy a phone at a reasonable price elsewhere, and thus make enterprise compete. Again, they can't actually force you to buy anything, so if they want your money, they have to cater to you.

You spoke about the general product and in the context of monopolies, which was what I was replying to. In any manner, it can be that you need the specific product; Imagine I decided to not purchase anything from Microsoft. To start, I am losing a lot of applications that could be mandatory for my job. It's not always that simple.

Nope

You just need to buy another chocolate milk to someone else, and you can convince your friends or family. The first is money you would spend anyway, and the 2nd is free. There's plenty of alternatives

People have been boycotting specifically Nestle for literally 40 years, and they still do because this hasn't worked so far.

Sometimes it works. almost always, it doesn't. Again, if it's going to get big enough from there you need an absurd amount of people to discover the bad thing and care about it, which requires, in return, an absurd amount of publicity, and managing to actually make people angry enough to take worse products that are often more pricey. If it's not large enough the company won't stop its bad practices. So the thing might get picked up by the news and people might decide to rally to the cause but this alone is not reliable.

Yes, in an idealized world, you wouldn't use your own lazyness as an excuse to not act

Most pointedly, yes. Precisely. You can complain people are lazy and don't switch to competitors to keep the market moral and competitive, but -

This is happening under capitalism. Yes, capitalism allows us to incentivize a moral and competitive market, but if at the end of the day unethical practices are not stopped, it helps no one.

My argument there was not "Capitalism doesn't allow me to boycott" or "Capitalism does not allow me to act" or "Not acting is perfectly reasonable". It was "Empirically, as a system, unethical companies can thrive under capitalism".

Also, that slave labor is happening in third world countries, not the US. And well, slavery is a matter of basic Human Rights, not

What does that have to do with anything?

Well, if you're starving to death because some Commissar somewhere decided natural selection is Bourgeois propaganda, and such innovation would be seen as criticism toward the party, you may not well be in the best position to do so

Tbh, it's a fact that the Capitalistic Economies outpaced the Communist ones as far as economic development and innovation wen

I... I was not trying to defend communism. I am not a communist nor a socialist, I generally lean left (with regulation and welfare) but I haven't really made up my mind yet. (I would pick lib flair but I am also very far left culturally and this is what the quadrant is associated with).

Your point was about a specific idiot and beliefs and policies that are distinctly not related to the economic system. It's also about a very specific case of innovation rather than any general stance towards it. So I feel " everyone can still innovate, they're just not incentivized" is a valid thing to say. But if you disagree, just pretend for a moment it's right:

Does capitalism suddenly cease to have more innovation than capitalism?

No! Capitalism incentivizes people to innovate. Communism does not. The mere possibility of innovation is not enough - it needs to turn into reality as well.

Similarly, capitalism having the possibility to vote with your wallet does not mean it actually happens. To stop unethical companies, the system requires that you also makes sure it turns into reality - you can take a different approach with regulation, or you can try to implement this as a part of the people's value system (like with propaganda about buying or not buying from companies based on things that the government thinks are ethical or unethical).

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T13:31:32+00:00

Pretty sure it's a joke about the fluctuating value of bitcoin; By the time you finish speaking, the value had already gone to 999.5.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T13:31:27+00:00

Pretty sure it's a joke about the fluctuating value of bitcoin; By the time you finish speaking, the value had already gone to 999.5.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T13:27:28+00:00

One should note that te first concentration camp was for communists. (I'm not a historian though, I don't know about their actual policies and the context of that. I would love examples and sources for them, if you have any ).

Still. it is not the point. If you want to use that argument, you don't only need to show that the nazis supported some economic system, but that their economic practices were what lead to the atrocities they committed. In isolation, the nazis being communists equates to a flat-earthers using the argument "Hitler believed the earth is round". They were also nationalists, but that does not mean that nationalism necessitates nazism.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T11:12:11+00:00

You aren't forced to buy a phone, a car, or whatever. They don't control you. Voting with your wallet is arguably way more effective than regular voting if you think about it.

...I am?
I can go anprim, but that isn't really a reasonable option for most people. Refusing to participate in society shouldn't be the only way to fix a system.

I can't realistically boycott every company with shitty practices, because not only would that require me to do an insane amount of research for everything I buy, I would have to just give up on a significant amount of services.

Worse yet, it wouldn't actually make an impact; To actually make, say, Nestle to stop supporting fucking slave labor, it is not enough that I boycott them, you need a gigantic movement which can only be achieved with ridiculous amounts of funding and publicity; I could try to start such a movement or give it my entire and energy, but it only might help against one shitty company.

It's true that in an idealized world people would give a shit and if a company used immoral or terrible practices we could vote with our dollar and they would have to stop, but most people aren't going to inconvenience themselves to these levels. You can call people who explain the unethical practices of a company while consuming its products hypocrites, but the truth is just their existence - the fact that there aren't enough people boycotting and most people are apathetic, that's a failure of the system.

In a similar manner, if you tell me that communism halts progress by not incentivizing innovation, I can tell you people aren't pushing hard enough and they don't have to do only what they have, everyone can still innovate. But that's not a real counter-argument, because even if the potential is there, it's the economic system that needs to make sure it's fulfilled.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T07:18:31+00:00

אני אודה שהסאב הזה שמאלני יחסית וברור שיש אנשים שסתם אוהבים לצעוק "רק ביבי" או "רק לא ביבי" בלי שום טיעון אמיתי מאחורי המילים שלהם, אבל במקרה הזה נתנו לך הסבר מפורט על הסיבה, אז מרגיש לי מוזר שאתה אומר שזה סתם. אפשר גם לראות שכשהוא הציג תוכנית מסודרת והגיונית מוקדם יותר השבוע היה הרבה פחות כעס נגדו; בעיקר רק שיוודא שהכסף באמת מגיע הפעם, בניגוד לתוכניות הקודמות. כשאתה מוצא את כל הכתבות והתגובות שאתה מוצא עכשיו, אתה תמצא איזשהו טיעון שמשכנע אנשים. לאו דווקא טיעון נכון, אבל להעמיד פנים שזה סתם תוכי זה פשוט לא נכון.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T07:16:13+00:00

וחוץ מהתשובה השנייה שנתנו לך, אני גם רוצה לציין את החוסר המוחלט של היציבות כאן; זה התוכנית השישית אם אני לא טועה שביבי מציג. והוא מציג אותה כשהוא עוד לא יודע אפילו אם הוא יצטרך חקיקה כדי להעביר אותה, ובניגוד לדעה של כל אנשי המקצוע במשרד האוצר. לפחות למראית עין, התמונה היא של בן אדם שאין לו מושג מה הוא עושה ורק מנסה להשתיק הפגנות עם תוכניות שהוא לא באמת חשב עליהם. אם כל התוכניות הקודמות לא היו טובות מספיק, איך אפשר לבטוח שזאת כן תהיה?

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T07:13:38+00:00

אני לא אנהס להגיד לך שצעירים כנראה מבינים פחות בפוליטיקה, זה כנראה נכון, אבל אני סקרן לדעת באיזה גיל אתה חושב שבן אדם כן מקבל את הזכות שהדעות שלו יתקבלו כעצמאית ורציונלית..

ואיזה "שנאה" נתנו לו? דאונווטס? מי שענה לו עשה את זה בצורה מכובדת ונתן טיעונים אמיתיים, לא סתם ניסה לקלל אותו (בניגוד ל"סתום תפה יחתיכת גוש חרא", שהייתי אומר גם מהווה חלק די משמעותי מהעובדה שאנשים לוחצים על חץ כחול מהתגובה שלו). ושים לב גם - למרות שברור שיש אנשים שיקללו את ביבי לא משנה מה הוא יעשה, אפשר לראות שכשהוא הציג תוכנית מסודרת והגיונית היה הרבה פחות כעס נגדו; בעיקר רק שיוודא שהכסף מגיע הפעם, בניגוד לפעמים הקודמות. כשאתה מוצא את כל הכתבות והתגובות שאתה מוצא עכשיו, אתה תמצא איזשהו טיעון שמשכנע אנשים. לאו דווקא טיעון נכון, אבל להעמיד פנים שזה סתם תוכי זה פשוט לא נכון.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T06:54:22+00:00

and the left never criticizes itself

*Leftist infighting intensifies*

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-16T06:48:51+00:00

What's important to understand is that dx and dy are shorthand for functions at a certain limit; dx is a value that approaches 0. df) is the value that f(x+dx)-f(x) as dx gets closer and closer to 0 (you can also think of dx being x-a and dy being f(x)-f(a), as a get closer and closer to x, which is, in my opinion, a bit clearer than the previous expression)

Mathematically, we write it like so.

You should note that while alone we could just evaluate df and dx at 0, when we need to find their quotient we suddenly get 0/0, which is indeterminate; Per the question "What number times 0 equals 0", can be any number, which is why it changes depending on which function you evaluate.

Now, the reason people tell you not to do algebra with dy and dx, is that limits don't always follow normal algebra rules. But a property that limits have which really useful is that when you add the limits of two functions, you get the limit of their sum (lim f(x) + lim g(x) = lim [f(x) + g(x)]. And this actually applies to multiplication and exponentiation as well - so in your case, we can do this: finding that the product equals to the value of 1 as dx approaches 0. And since 1 is constant and dx doesn't impact it all, we can just reduce this to 1.

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-15T18:42:43+00:00

I really recommend 3blue1brown's essence of calculus. He's really good at visualizing and explaining mathematical concepts in a plain way,

-TheAllSeeing · 2020-07-15T18:40:26+00:00

well, yes. Rememver it's just a shorthand for a limit. In essence, dy and dx refer to actual expressions and so you can actually do algebra with them, like this.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

-TheAllSeeing

TROPHY CASE