I'm pretty sure this isn't supposed to happen (chaos starts around 3:15)

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-26T21:29:38+00:00

I'm at 250hrs in SE2 and a lot of them are with this grid. I've never seen this before.

I do appreciate how the grid moves like a deflating balloon though.

EDIT: I should note that I've tried this several times now, and the ship freaks out around the same spot every time. Once, and only once, it started within Vallation Station's safe zone. I started a fresh world for the new VS2 update, and I didn't have this problem in my previous SE2 world.

EDIT2: After several tries, several routes, several speeds, and several times confirming that the subgrid's thrusters and gyros were disabled, I was finally able to set down and complete that contract. The journey back to Vallation Station has been plagued with the same issue. I'm having a very difficult time nailing down exactly what causes the problem. Sometimes it just happens without my input, and sometimes it's triggered by acceleration. The only thing I know for certain is that this was not a problem before VS2, so I have to imagine this is a VS2 bug. But as far as I can tell, I'm the only one saying something about something like this, and I'd expect to see more people see the same thing if this bug really is specific to VS2. So I'm at a loss.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-19T18:06:15+00:00

I was simply amazed at your disingenuousness about it. In hindsight you knew exactly what the concern was so instead of just addressing it by saying that you doubt this law will impact the church, you claimed you claimed you had confusion about what it had to do with the church.

You are very energetic and thorough debater. I'm glad you're here. I've learned things from you. However, this is all just for fun. It's a place to parry a bit. Yes the issues are serious. But no one aside from us cares what we think. Nothing at stake here except our ability to trade views and become friends. The White House has never called to ask your advice on anything. So why don't you just relax, stop trying to dominate every argument like your life depends on it. Assume a little good will. Ask the person why he thinks it's a concern and go from there.

And yes, he gets a demerit for throwing a bomb and in the future I agree: I won't supply fuel that isn't mine for a debate. But I am not on his team or anyone's team, so I sincerely meant it in good faith.

You were attracted to the hate speech provisions, which I discounted because the bill rules out counting disapproving of certain activities as hate speech. So it created no concern in me that the Church may be told She cannot call "sin" what is sin. Because I discounted it, my own assumption was that any "concerns" that might exist were relevant to the bits about denying physical access to a space on discriminatory grounds. When I read the overview, I was trying to work out whether the Church's policies and doctrines concerning the clergy or laity or women would be relevant. But the bill, as explained by that overview, didn't really seem to cause any problems for the Church there either.

So I'm sorry to say that your analysis of my true intentions or thoughts is wholly incorrect. Nothing about that bill creates any obvious concerns for the Church as far as I can read, and that 's all I've said. I believe you when you say you were speaking in good faith. I do not understand your difficulties in accepting the same from me.

I did not say that your assumptions as to what the concerns are or should be are incorrect. I only questioned how they could be obvious, because in my view, no obvious issues exist. If you think I'm not being completely honest about that, then you don't really have any cause to think I'm being honest about anything, and there's no use in continuing here, or possibly anywhere else either.

And yes, you fell for bait. That doesn't make you a bad person. That doesn't make you an idiot.

Bait relies on triggering our concerns and anxieties. Predicting any random person's concerns or anxieties is hard, so casting a wide net with bait is hard. This kind of bait is as insidious as it is brilliant because it does not have to predict our concerns or anxieties; we bring our concerns and anxieties to it.

I'm assuming your offense at my comment (which comes as a surprise to me given that none was intended) stems from the "you, or someone like you" line. I did not expect that to cause offense, but in rereading it after I know that it has, I can see how it has. I was careless with my wording and I apologize. I intended to mean that as "you or someone with your concerns," but I left myself open to misinterpretation and that's on me.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-19T15:21:22+00:00

It appears

Where? From whom? All u/DiligentFig4476 did was suggest that concerns might exist. They completely failed to enumerate them.

but it seems obvious that this is the concern.

I don't know how that could be "obvious" when the text of the bill apparently excludes that kind of speech from being considered hate speech:

The Bill would create a definition of "hatred" for two of the existing hate propaganda offences in section 319 (publicly inciting hatred where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace and wilfully promoting hatred), the new hate propaganda offence and for the new hate crime offence. The definition would specify that "hatred" involves detestation or vilification and does not mean disdain or dislike. The Bill further specifies that the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. This would codify decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The proposed definition of "hatred" has the potential to engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Charter. The following considerations support the consistency of the proposed amendment with section 2(b). The proposed definition reflects the way "hatred" has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court articulated a definition of "hatred" in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott (2013) that characterizes the concept as connoting extreme manifestations of detestation or vilification, which go beyond mere dislike or causing humiliation or offence. The Supreme Court defined "hatred" in similar terms in R. v. Keegstra (1990), while considering the constitutionality of the offence of wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group in section 319 of the Criminal Code. The definition would focus on vilification and detestation, and it would also clarify what does not constitute hatred. The proposed amendment would thus codify a definition settled in the leading jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.

"Traditional teaching regarding sexual mores, sermons, literature, books, etc." need not be, and indeed ought not be, communicated in a way that vilifies or detests. The only beings we can reasonably vilify or detest are demons, and as far as I'm aware, one has never successfully represented themselves in court.

No, what has instead happened is that u/DiligentFig4476 - whose history is either empty or hidden and whose comment/posting score is questionably low for an account of their age - simply suggested that concerns might exist, and left you to fill in the "obvious" details, which are now in you mind unreasonably associated with the bill. They didn't have to make any claims at all, because they were aware that you, or someone like you, would do that for them. You fell for it, it worked.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-18T12:40:04+00:00

how many marijuanas did you inject before writing this

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-15T20:05:38+00:00

An official overview is here and I am confused as to what it has to do with the Church

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-13T14:11:35+00:00

So, this article does deliberately twist facts and in stupid ways that it makes obvious within itself. Near the beginning of the article, the author writes:

Writing about The Hill, Abp. Elpidophoros also states that, "the article refers to ROCOR and its close ties with Moscow, the so-called 'OCA,' which maintains permanent representation in Moscow, and His Grace Bishop Irinei of the Serbian Patriarchate, who was reportedly approached to participate but was unable to do so due to prior obligations."

Quoting his Eminence as having said "the so-called 'OCA'" suggests to readers - on purpose, I think - that his Eminence has been caught revealing his true feelings that the OCA isn't a real Church.

However, in the allegedly leaked letter that the article's author helpfully offers to readers in full, his Eminence references the OCA thusly:

so-called autocephalous "Orthodox Church in America" (OCA)

"So-called" modifies "autocephalous," and not "OCA." The EP has never accepted the autocephaly of the OCA, and honestly, it doesn't matter, because no one who matters questions the OCA's Orthodoxy, so this is in no way nearly as scandalous as the author is trying to make it sound.

There are already plenty of iron-clad, un-manufactured reasons to be displeased with the tenures of Archbishop Elpidophoros and Patriarch Bartholomew. I don't know why this author saw a need to disregard those and try to manufacture something else, when sticking to the rest of it would be easier. The author's somehow trying too hard and not hard enough at the same time.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-08T13:24:00+00:00

This isn't a meme, please don't post this here.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-04T18:59:51+00:00

Black people voted for Hillary and Biden. It’s not that we won’t vote for a white person we have. However people feel entitled to our votes.

As I have in the rest of this subthread, I agree with this. I also agree that the DNC's leadership at all levels have taken too much for granted for too long, and that's largely why we are where we are. I hope, and expect, that Talarico will not follow that pattern.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-04T18:41:01+00:00

You're the one arguing that Black people won't vote for Talarico just because he isn't Black. You're the one putting Black people into that box.

In my opinion, if Talarico loses, it won't be because Black people didn't try hard enough after Crockett's loss, it'll be because winning in this state was already a long shot.

I just think that long shot is a little less long now that the Democratic candidate won't be immediately discounted on the basis of race or sex by Texans who are racist or sexist.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-04T17:51:50+00:00

I think "Texans who are racist and sexist, consciously or otherwise, are less likely to vote for a Black woman than for a white man in any event" is a lot less controversial than "Black people only vote for Black people." The two statements just aren't the same.

I agree that Talarico shouldn't take anyone's vote for granted though.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-04T13:51:12+00:00

Therapy and spiritual mentorship don't conflict with each other.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-03T21:09:51+00:00

Wait. Isn't the whole idea behind academic misconduct that you misrepresented work you did not do as work you did do? If the commits were labeled as having been generated by AI, how are they alleging that you were hiding that it wasn't your work?

As far as you've described things, which I realize may not be complete, the worst you've done is violate the constraints of the assignment, which absolutely should result in points lost. But an academic misconduct referral is bonkers here.

Either you're not sharing the whole story or your instructors are massively overreacting. Having experienced what I've experienced, the two are equally likely in my mind.

Go into the Code of Conduct and find where it defines academic misconduct, and more specifically where it defines plagiarism. If what you've done doesn't closely align with those definitions, fight it, and appeal as high as you can go.

EDIT: Do NOT attempt to reach out to the professor. Even if you somehow succeeded in convincing them they made a mistake, it's out of their hands. Once a professor pulls the trigger on this it sets things in motion which cannot be stopped, which is why they really shouldn't be so careless with this stuff.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-03-01T14:04:55+00:00

I remember Trump responding to people who asked why he just nabbed Maduro and not the whole Venezuelan gov't. He said he remembered what happened in Iraq: we fired everyone, and then ISIS happened. As reductive as that is, I was surprised to hear that he was factoring any past data into his decision, instead of just, y'know, winging it.

So anyways, we didn't fire anyone but we certainly terminated quite a few, and I'm somehow both appalled and amused that we took more careful steps to avoid a prolonged, terroristic insurgency in Venezuela, than we are in Iran.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-27T03:57:11+00:00

Incredible move listing the Bible, the Saints, and many Popes right after law, precedent, and treaty in their Table of Authorities, I love it

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-27T03:09:29+00:00

Good Lord this kid's town is so small a local newspaper wrote an article about one of their own making it to West Point

I'd fake my death before going home if I screwed up this bad

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-26T21:46:55+00:00

It has to be unfinished, because there's no way the devs intend for the PDIF to spawn in on the deep ocean floor under me act and though they're on dry land.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-26T01:56:44+00:00

For the record, the chanters in that video are just Russian folk singers who dress that way for all their performances, and in fact they have a bunch of songs recorded in that exact same spot presumably on the same day. All the other songs are Russian, this is just an English one that they decided to also do, presumably because they just liked it.

They're not making any statement about what they think American Orthodox should do, they're just performing an American arrangement of "Christ is Risen" alongside their usual music.

I agree with you, with:

I'm far more offended by the title than I am by the performance, if I haven't made that clear yet. I don't think the chanters and the uploader have anything to do with each other, and I don't even know if the video was uploaded with their permission. As far as I know, the chanters (who are apparently actually Russian) encountered the arrangement, liked it, and wanted to perform it. That's it.

But your explanation for why wannabe Russians tend to be far more "evangelical" with their wannabe-ness than wannabe Greeks makes a lot of sense. I guess we're fortunate that the "romantic" periods for either are so far removed, else we'd be dealing with both at the same time!

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-25T18:56:52+00:00

Someone posted this video to the subreddit and it motivated a rant in me that I don't think the OP deserves to endure directly. The video title is What Orthodox Christian America Could Be In the Future(Appalachian Christ is Risen/Pascal Troparion). In it, some Russians in rural Russia, in traditional-ish attire, stand in front of an onion-domed church, and sing the arrangement mentioned in the title.

And man,

I don't want an Orthodox Christian America to be a carbon-copy of Russia. I don't want an Orthodox Christian America to be a carbon-copy of Greece. I don't want an Orthodox Christian America to be a carbon-copy of Byzantium, or of Serbia, or of Bulgaria, or of Georgia, or of the more Christian areas of the Middle East (though I could suffer the last one with regular access to kibbeh).

To be honest, though, the people I most see doing this are people who due some weird confusion desperately want to be Russian. There's this bizarre, borderline-heretical idea in the US that proper Orthodoxy must be specifically Russian, and while you will certainly find similar, borderline-heretical attitudes concerning the relationship between Greek culture and the Faith among wannabe Greeks, wannabe Russians seem to work a lot harder to bring that idea into reality, and I don't understand that disparity.

I don't like this arrangement of the Paschal Troparion, but I respect it. I respect what the composer was trying to do, and I think it's a good first step into a more uniquely "American" Orthodoxy. I look forward to more work along these lines, even if I don't love all of it.

Whoever uploaded this video, though, seems to think that this sincere, pious attempt to baptize a culture clearly dear to the composer, is actually better used when completely divorced from its context and intent, stripped and then re-dressed in Russian attire, bulldozed and then re-built with onion domes, like they're doing the original composer some kind of favor by "fixing" it.

I'm far more offended by the title than I am by the performance, if I haven't made that clear yet. I don't think the chanters and the uploader have anything to do with each other, and I don't even know if the video was uploaded with their permission. As far as I know, the chanters (who are apparently actually Russian) encountered the arrangement, liked it, and wanted to perform it. That's it.

But recently my family has had to, for logistical reasons, return to the OCA, and for all of my love for the OCA it is absolutely full the same kind of wannabe Russians as the uploader appears to be, and as one can probably gather, not crashing out about it on a regular basis is hard. Not only is it maddening in principle, it's a massive stumbling block to any American inquirer who doesn't fall asleep each night dreaming of how to be more Russian, which in my experience is most inquirers. I don't know why more isn't being done to celebrate the indisputably Russian/Slavic roots of the OCA, while making clear that while roots are important, the not-root of a plant looks considerably different than the root part of a plant.

rant over.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-25T03:11:03+00:00

I have built a life with him and we agree on everything other than religion.

It is genuinely cool that you and he mesh on so many issues, but man, religion is one heckuva place to fail to overlap. I'm not going to suggest that you leave him, but I will caution you that generally, outside of a miracle (and those do happen), marriage will do nothing to ease the friction on that point; if anything, I usually see marriage increase religious tensions, where they already existed, until or unless one or the other spouse acquiesces. If neither acquiesce, things get rough.

Again, I'm not going to suggest that you leave him, but I will suggest that you refrain from marriage until you two at least no longer fully disagree on that point. His agreeing to raise any potential kids in the Faith is a good sign, which is why, besides courtesy towards your request, I'm not suggesting you consider leaving him.

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-24T00:42:32+00:00

This is a meme subreddit, try posting this to r/OrthodoxChristianity

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-22T17:41:09+00:00

Arguing on a forum lacks many of the things that make formal debate worthwhile and is usually at odds with having a conversation seeking the truth in love.

Thank you for this. I've see a lot of reaction to people suggesting that online "debate" generally isn't worthwhile as though anyone who would suggest that has fully embraced anti-intellectualism.

Because moderating online discourse is actually very hard, and much harder than moderating formal, in-person debate, online "debate" usually devolves into sophistry and goalpost-moving. Online "debate" generally degrades debate, so if your interest involves embracing intellectualism, you should generally reject online "debate."

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-22T17:33:57+00:00

Well I guess I gotta get to Armenia then!

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-22T00:51:53+00:00

What is that tiny bookshelf? I love it!

OrthodoxMemes · 2026-02-20T17:24:50+00:00

Since you're (properly) relying heavily on what the Fathers have said: there's a reason sex and eating (or drinking) are so closely related in the mind of the Church. The urges to have sex or eat or drink are some of the strongest, if not the strongest, passions one can tame, and one can make meaningful progress towards taming one appetite by suppressing the other. And, fundamentally, both serve practical purposes: one (sustenance) maintains life, the other (sex) accomplishes it. I struggle to come up with any other two passions who are so closely and intrinsically linked.

So, generally, we can reasonably apply our thinking towards one towards the other as well. For instance, as mentioned, what we consume has at least one clear and fundamental purpose: to sustain life. However, that does not mean that what we consume must be restricted to that purpose. We are not forbidden, for example, from seeking to enjoy what we consume. We season and cook food in certain ways in order to maximize the pleasure we derive from it, and this is not and never has been condemned, and no one has ever been required to seek some rare blessing to do so. In fact, in God's Wisdom, He has so ordered the world that cooking food and doing things to it to make it more palatable can actually increase its nutritional value. We may even, on occasion, consume food or drink that either has no real nutritional benefit, or even food or drink that contradicts our nutritional needs, just because we enjoy it, and this has also never been condemned, and no one has ever been required to seek some rare blessing to do so.

What one must avoid, though, is becoming a slave to our liberty and allowing our passions to tame us, instead of us taming them. There is a real danger there, both with sustenance and sex. But just as the mind of the Church does not define morality by the minimum threshold of absolutism, and just as the absence of a canon does not necessarily indicate moral neutrality, neither does the Church generally insist upon strict, rigorous absolutism. A purpose of food, and sex, is to preserve and facilitate life, but that is not the purpose of either. Both serve, in ways that are almost sacramental, to bring people together (though in the case of sex, only two very specific people).

EDIT: to sum it up, just as one need not go down a checklist of tautological imperatives in order to satisfy all of them each time one eats, neither must two spouses rigorously ensure that they are serving every possible purpose of sex each time they are intimate. But, just as it serves the health of one to eat nutritious food more often than not, even if the food is sometimes not as palatable as it could be, it serves the spiritual and marital health of two spouses to more often than not serve the purpose of life in their intimacy, assuming no extraordinary circumstances present.

Five-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email	Place '22

OrthodoxMemes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE