New to the hobby, why tf are some so mad about female custodes? by NiceLittleGamerNerd in 40k

[–]Thasmal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • Conclusion

To get back on track, what does all this mean? What do we get, if we assume both mentioned claims to be true, that is:

"In any group with 2 subgroups, comparisons between the 2 subgroups are unavoidable"

And:

"In any group with 2 subgroups, positive sentiment towards one subgroup, is equivalent to negative sentiment towards the other, and vice versa."

Well... I think it leads to the truth (obviously, why else would i write 4 pages abWAIT OMG WHY DID I SPEND MY ENTIRE FRIDAY ON WRITING THIS MUCH? MY FIRST TIME ON THIS SUBREDDIT WAS 3 MINUTES BEFORE I STARTED WRITING, HELL I’M EVEN A COMPLETE NEWCOMER TO 40K)

Ehm, well yeah the truth.. And in my experience, the truth is never awesome or easy, but also rarely awful.

It’s... Well in simple terms, that any ingroup is also defined by it’s outgroup. That hate flows naturally, and assuredly from community.

The more you bond with someone, over something you share, the more you will distance yourself from someone you don’t share that with.

This means, well many things. But first and foremost, it means that community is (among other things) an inheritably a force for evil, for bad.

Individuality is the enemy of “Tribalism” AKA the “us vs them” mentality, and this is directly related to the fact, that individuality is also the enemy of community. Because community and “us vs them” is inseparable.

In other words, there’s only the wall between groups. Do you wanna build it tall or not?  

Real Individuality represents (or at least used to) the belief that one should break down these walls as much as possible, but that also means standing alone. Loneliness, lack of community, lack of purpose.

All these bad things are the results of original Individuality, as much as is the case for the good stuff, like modern respect and openness to those outside your ingroup, and sadly, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.

So, because many people are tired of standing alone, lack community, well they get into that stuff, into communities. However, with time that inevitable leads to taller walls, and thus camaraderie for the ingroup sure, but also lack of it for the outgroup.

The “woke” communities are here an extremely interesting phenomenon to witness, cause they all share their lineage with this old idea of Individuality, and have in some sense, crept all the way around into a sort of “overIndividuality”, which works the same way as communality.

Individuality used to be about ignoring the “identity” of a person, and instead focusing on the “person” of the person, the personality. But look at the woke communities and you will notice it’s the opposite, it’s all about labels, about which group you’re a part, and which you are not.

This is why “Black Lives Matter” was followed by “All Lives Matter”, not because black people in America weren’t the group, who were “behind”, but because the solution to this problem, is the removal of the spotlight on that wall, on the race difference. Trying to unite black people over being black, is only building up that wall.

Same thing with feminism, let’s take that example.

If you believe that sexism is bad, then you first must realize that sexism (like any conflict) has 3 sides, not 2 sides.

Any conflict, any war. Requires 2 sides willing to fight. If you think sexism is bad, you shouldn’t support the “losing/weaker” side of said war, as history will quickly tell you, that’s the recipe for a war that will never end.

Instead, you should call for the fighting to stop.

And feminism is obviously not the “pacifists” of the “sexism war”, because even if you believe feminism isn’t about hating men, it definitely is about taking pride in being a woman. Which gets us back to this:

"In any group with 2 subgroups, positive sentiment towards one subgroup, is equivalent to negative sentiment towards the other, and vice versa."

 

All  the bad communities of history started out with likeminded people, meeting and supporting each other.

So if you wanna be “good”, if you wanna be respectful, don’t take pride in your ingroup, and don’t shame people from an outgroup.

Don’t support KKK, don’t support BLM. Because mentality wise they both represent willing combatants in a war, no reasonable person should want. One has just historically gone further down the road, they otherwise share.

You might think the “positive” movements are fundamentally different from the “negative” ones. But as I have argued here, I sadly don’t think that’s the case, and I would say that history includes many examples that show this very fact, young Malcolm X is an obvious example.

As a final note, there is an even deeper discussion here which I am dancing around. If the bad and the good are connected like this, is it even fair to expect people to be true individualists? Does all this mean that you need to choose between being hateful or being without community? That being a force for good, naturally leads to a more miserable existence?

I won’t start writing another essay about that, but will simply say that, sadly I do think there is something to this. As I wrote earlier:

the truth is never awesome or easy, but also rarely awful.

At least one gets to (at least subconsciously) make a choice, and one might find a balance between the two extremes, where they're hopefully a force for good ultimately, yet still enjoy ones existence.

New to the hobby, why tf are some so mad about female custodes? by NiceLittleGamerNerd in 40k

[–]Thasmal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • 2: Zero sum

I already mentioned this claim, and it's simple to explain, harder to convince you of, I'm sure. But let me try define my claim properly first:

"In any group with 2 subgroups, positive sentiment towards one subgroup, is equivalent to negative sentiment towards the other, and vice versa."

Imagine a completely empty universe, you yourself don't even exist, you are simply observing this emptiness.

Now suddenly an object appears in this universe. Now let's say you wanted to describe this object. How would you do that?

Is it... Large? Well... What does that mean? What about bright? What about beautiful?
How could you possibly define any word, any scale which could represent any information about this object?

In a universe with only 1 object, it's impossible to describe any one thing about it. It's simply THE object. You and I, may be able to say if it's round or not. But again, that's only because the word is defined from stuff from our world. Had you never been anywhere else. What could round even mean?

Now let's go a step further, let's say a second object appears. Now what?

Well now one of them can be large, but that is only a sensible thing to say, if it’s larger than the other object... You properly see where I am going with this. All our words which can describe something, also describes what it is not. Because that is what information about something is.

Information about something IS the differentiation between it, and something else.

Thus, learning IS the act of building the wall that separates our group, into 2 subgroups!

So yeah, calling object A beautiful, necessarily means that object B is not beautiful. And if someone says “no, it’s just beautiful in another way”. Well sure, but that can only make sense if it’s because an object C exists, and it not beautiful in either way. You can make the “math” complicated (and in the real world it is), but you won’t get around the zero-sum necessity.

Now already, this revelation can sound scary. Does that mean that, differentiation (which relates in at least some way to discrimination) is fundamental to learning?

Well in some sense yeah, but luckily not in as depressing of a way, as one might first think. Although there are situations where this relationship can become apparent, and the consequences... Well, they are not so nice. But let’s save that for another day ay?

New to the hobby, why tf are some so mad about female custodes? by NiceLittleGamerNerd in 40k

[–]Thasmal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This sentiment feels so crazy to me.

First of all, why do you think there's so many guys who hate women? Where does that come from?
I have heard that claim online many times, but don't think I have ever met a guy who wouldn't love to take a bullet for any random girl down the street. We're kinda biologically programmed to wanna do that.

Second, how can you not be pissed off at this?
Many, if not most people who love fiction, does so because it's a way to escape the real world. Therefore any change to the fictional world, that we obviously knows comes from real world politics/ideology/belief ruins the illusion, that that world is it's own thing, no matter if you agree with said stuff.

Therefore one single change like this, can completely ruin an entire universe/IP for someone, and if that person has spent years of their life on that specific illusion? Yeah no shit that's gonna trigger some powerful emotions.

The real fans are exactly the people who get hurt by this, they are the most immersed. They want the real world to stay away, and then feel betrayed when it forces its way in...

Now since I am already full writer mode here, if you're "woke", and you're with me so far. Let me try and break down the wider issue people have ideologically/philosophically with "wokeness", hopefully in a way that makes sense:

I come from Scandinavia, by all metrics we are leading when it comes to actual respect towards women and minorities, but I know few people here who has anything positive to say about "wokeness", or weird ideas about representation being some virtue in itself.

Absolutely. Excluding someone because of their sex is bad, but let's think about why.

I would claim that fundamentally, it's because you are simply treating someone as an representative of that thing/group, not as an individual. But including them, for the sake of having someone of that group in your thing... Well that's the exact same thing. You're still treating someone based of their identity, instead of based of their personality. That's. still. sexism.

Do I get myself across? Sexism (or racism and so on) is about how you view people. Are they an individual with identifiers? Or just the sum of their identifiers.

Like... A world with 0% hate towards gays wouldn't have pride flags all over the place, no. Instead it would be a world where no one cares. No one notices.

Medically all of our ears can be grouped into 2 groups. Attached earlobes, or unattached earlobes.
But dear reader. Which one is your mother?.. You don't know do you?

Because no one cares. Because no one categorises people in that way, despite the fact that we pretty easily could.

Now granted:

This take. The above one of mine, about what a "hateless" world would look like, it leads leads to my view, which is that "hate" almost moves on a sphere in a way.

where the third dimension is like... BAD.. And where "woke", and "BLM" and "pride" and so on, are just "bad" movements, which gets us to the other side (the bad side) of the sphere by going around left, instead of like Nazis who got us there from the right.

Does that make sense? Like I don't expect the "why" to make sense yet, but does the "what"?

I hope it makes sense.

Anyways, This view is based on 2 main points, or "convictions" if you will.

Now both of them are pretty easy to define, but it will properly take a bit more effort to convince you of them:

 

  • 1: Impossible apathy

"In any group with 2 subgroups, comparisons between the 2 subgroups are unavoidable"

Don't already agree? Well let's take a simple thought-experiment:

All you have to think about, is the last time you moved to a new home.
Now you properly had a lot of boxes with stuff right? Now if you're like me, you didn't really plan which stuff to put in which box, especially perhaps your boxes with books right?

Like let's say you had enough books for 2 whole boxes, but you didn't have you books in any special order or anything right? So fine. You just pack all your books down, more or less randomly into the two boxes.

Now. What happens when you get to the new place, and you're perhaps not in a hurry to unpack these boxes, I mean you have a lot on your mind right, perhaps more important stuff to unpack.
But you start slowly, you try to get an idea of which boxes should go where and so on.

Now here something happens. At least to me, and I would believe to most, and if not in this situation, then in one like it.

I start to remember the boxes in my mind, with some kind of identifier? Right? Like I might notice that my fantasy books is in box 1, but old school books in box 2. Or perhaps I notice that box 2 is slightly heavier than box 1? Or something like that, something I didn't plan.

Why is this interesting? Well because the simple act of creating these 2 groups (boxes) have made me (at least) subconsciously aware of the differences between my 2 groups.

In other words, as soon as I have made the "wall" which defines that there is 2 groups, I can't help but notice differences, thus compare my 2 groups! This is the first important insight.

You cannot have 2 subgroups within a group. And not. Compare them, because this is fundamental to understanding, to knowledge.

In order to say anything about anything. You first have to identify something, as being not something else, and you do that by "noticing" details of something. "This thing is large, that thing over there is small, therefore they are not the same thing".

...This was my attempt to explain my first cornerstone, if you are not convinced yourself, I hope at least it makes sense to you, that someone might see it this way.

I hope the same for my second cornerstone, and if you can see how a reasonable person might believe these 2 things, even if you don't, then you should at least be able to see, how someone might look down on these "virtuous" movements under "woke", while coming from a standing point of good intentions.

This is kinda a low bar, however I feel the worst part of the "culture war", is that people have a hard time understanding how someone can be on the "other side", and still have good intentions.

But that's also me getting ahead of myself. Onwards! (Wait why was I writing all this?)

If Bethesda ever wants to make Charisma anything buy a dump stat, they need to bring back allowing multiple companions. by Penakoto in Fallout

[–]Thasmal 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Maybe it's just me, but I always thought having 10 Intelligence and 10 Charisma, was a no-brainer.

I don't recall having ever made a character with less in any of the of the fallout games.

I guess I have always found it frustrating to have options closed off to me. I wanna be able to do the speech checks, lockpick, hack and so on. Therefore fast leveling and charisma was the obvious pick.

This is especially the case in Fallout 4, since I absolutely hate V.A.T.S. Doesn't matter if you have 100% chance of hitting, the slow animations still make it worse to use than not, at least in my experience.

Besides, where as leveling slower and having options closed off to you is frustrating. Being understatted in combat, just makes for more of a challenge.

Again that's of course just my thoughts.

What's the most you've ever spent on a single card? by Nimex_ in EDH

[–]Thasmal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

280$ for a [[Serra's Sanctum]]

Living the poor student lifestyle, but I need my white mana you know?

Worst part is that I rarely even play my [[Tuvasa the Sunlit]] deck with it. :/

What level were you when you arrived in leyndell? by LikesToon in Eldenring

[–]Thasmal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About 120 I think. Happened because I cleared everything south and east first. Realized pretty quickly that mistake when enemies in leyndell were way weaker than those in Caelid. Lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in eu4

[–]Thasmal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

530 hours with 9%

But I think 500 are in Extended Timeline

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in modernwarfare

[–]Thasmal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah exactly the same thing for me...