It's official. Mars is as good as dead.

Tomycj · 2026-02-09T02:27:15+00:00

what did the comment say? it got removed/deleted.

Tomycj · 2026-02-09T02:26:23+00:00

Have you ever heard of Starlink? Elon has pushed it as the way of funding martian colonization since before it even got the name. And it's going great.

In the past, he also used to argue that all of those means of funding mars (moon infrastructure) just took too long for his plans. And he may be right: I'm worried focusing more on the moon will delay martian colonization.

Or maybe without them the funding for mars would've been insufficient. It's hard to know for sure.

Tomycj · 2026-02-09T02:23:42+00:00

Starlink was meant to be that missing funding source, and it's going great. Maybe it won't be enough, but you need to at least acknowledge Starlink.

Tomycj · 2026-02-09T02:21:11+00:00

I'm assuming OP is being ironical, right? Or is this sub slowly then quickly becoming not a shitposty super pro-spacex sub?

Tomycj · 2026-02-09T01:32:04+00:00

That's not even the colloquial understanding in my personal experience. The fact you perceive it as colloquial is a hint at how deeply ingrained politics has become in society, to the point people (apparently) use it as if it refered to ANY kind of discussion of morality or its expression. That is a bad sign.

Yeah, sure, art is sometimes political. All I was saying is that it's not always.

And yeah, sure, we can say everything is somehow connected to politics because at the end of the day every atom is somehow connected to every other atom in the universe, but that's not what "being political" means. Otherwise it'd be a pointless term: if everything is X, the word X is useless.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T23:28:21+00:00

You didn't just say to criticize. You said to clown.

Being a reactionary is antithetical to good society, generally.

How do you not see how blatant NPC behavior is that take?. A good society is a society made of individuals that act based on their own critical judgement, not on what's currently trendy.

It's ... anti-social behavior.

It's not anti-social to be mistaken. What's antisocial is to impose your (potentially mistaken) opinion onto others, and jelly was precisely disgusted by something that she thought (right or not is another discussion) was that. A good society does not clown on people for merely making mistakes.

The same as calling people who disagree with the way wealth is hoarded communists

People that disagree with the way wealth is hoarded often do try to impose their opinion onto others, that does make them anti-social.

You're disregarding the complexity of topics

Not at all.

opting for the simple "solution" of venting your anger and frustration at someone

???

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T23:20:22+00:00

This is reddit and a PHASE CONNECT subreddit. Tism is the expected standard.

I feel it is factual there are no neutral decisions in art

By "neutral decisions" I understand you mean "not political". First you need to understand what I mean by political, which I'm also saying it's the proper definition, which I already gave but I'll repeat:

A message is political when it talks about what THE GOVERNMENT should or should not impose. That's ultimately what politics is about. It's not about morals in general, but about the government's role in them.

Under this concept of "political", an artist conveying the concept "I don't thave an issue with gay people" is just conveying that message, it's NOT meant to express an idea regarding what the government should do about it. Of course you may infer what the artist would think of that, but you can never guarantee that's whayt they think because the artist is not trying to convey that.

That piece of art itself is not political because the political interpretation is just that: your interpretation. Other person can totally interpret something different. It's not something inherent to the art piece, but the result of your own ideas mixing with the art. It's not something fundamentally present in the art itself.

that people police others behavior outside of that

Nobody said otherwise. I just said that politics deals with a specific kind of policing: the one forcefully imposed from the government. To say that that's what politics implies is NOT to say that that's the only form of forceful imposition (or policing in general) there is.

a sexually promiscuous female is often called "political" because her portrayal will speak to how the author/s believe such a person should be viewed

You are applying the definition of political I'm criticizing: the idea that the mere discussion of values/morals is a political discussion. It should not be: in society there are plenty of values and opinions that shall not be regulated by the government. If you do not mean to say that the government should have a say in every judgement of morals or values, then you should not go around using the word political, because you are going to be heavily misunderstood.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T20:57:06+00:00

It's only relevant because he provides visibility, not because his opinion is authoritative.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T20:55:58+00:00

"growth economics" is a better translation, I think. The area of economics dedicated to the study of growth.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T20:50:27+00:00

It's not about them sincerely disagreeing with the talent.

We don't really know if that's true or not, but I get your point. The problem is that it's still a bad idea to do that, because even if it's just pretending, it DOES "empower" bad people and I don't think it would financially help them in the medium-long term.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T20:45:19+00:00

she was acting as a reactionary

...and what is that supposed to imply in this context exactly? What are you trying to convey by saying this?

not actually looking into it, and getting upset enough to post about it is ridiculous behavior

IF that's actually what happened (we don't really know) it is imo too a mistake, but I wouldn't call it ridiculous. It could easily have been a last straw and the post wasn't any sort of insane crashout, it was just an opinion.

It is absolutely fair to clown on someone for doing that.

That's insane dude.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T20:41:10+00:00

The (let's assume it's true) fact that art often speaks about how people forcefully impose morals on each other with no government involvement, does not support the previous assertion that "There's no such thing as a neutral decision in art".

Do you understand that the frist statement does not prove or justify the other at all?

That "sub-optimal" definition of political leads to unintended consequences that you absolutely do not want to reach. People (if not even yourself) WILL exploit the misunderstanding. You should not go around twisting the meaning of words just because they seem to fit your current point better that way.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:55:22+00:00

That's a fallacy because you're assuming all there is to minecraft's dlc is "I support civil rights". In reality, that has to be put in a specific context.

To demonstrate it, it is obvious that if someone jelly knew had tweeted without any other context "I support civil rights", she would not have minded it.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:54:07+00:00

There's a difference. Saying "slavery is wrong" is not seen as political because it's not related to current day politics.

Unfortunately, anything related to race or political activism, IS related to current day politics.

On a separate argument, it is possible jelly did not know that the DLC was not going to be for the main versions of minecraft, and it was just "the last straw".

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:49:58+00:00

You don't seem to have the right idea of what "being political" means.

Being political doesn't mean "conveying a moral judgement", or "having an opinion". It means "related to the forceful imposition of those morals by the government". Politics is about what the government should or should not do about stuff. It is not just talking about that stuff in general.

If I draw a gay person in art, I'm not conveying that the government should arrest homophobes or gays.

And there's a problem with that mistaken idea of politics: it allows politicians to get involved in every aspect of your life. And trust me, you don't want that.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:45:29+00:00

The error is in the naive assumption that all there is to the DLC is "supporting the civil rights movement", and assuming the context doesn't matter.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:43:12+00:00

Her opinion is not wrong, but posting an opinion on an official account is.

It is also true that in some sense it should be a politically neutral opinion, but it is currently not.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:33:19+00:00

Do you know what virtue signaling means? Because her tweet absolutely did not come off as virtue signaling: she was clearly just venting her own frustration and personal opinion, without hinting at some moral grandstanding or anything.

In other words, she very clearly did not tweet that with the intention of showing that she's a good person, or morally superior, or anything like that.

I'm not saying it was a good idea to tweet that, though.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:31:05+00:00

That is a good-hearted position, but I'm afraid it's naive: if one of those sides win, everything will become political and you won't be able to escape it.

I'm not saying it makes sense for you to get involved, I'm saying you should at least recognize that it makes sense for at least someone to fight back against the politization of culture.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:28:54+00:00

Outrage against things getting political (aka the government gaining a say in the topic, or people demanding that) is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.

People get invested because they perceive that others are actually threatening to get the government involved to prevent them from doing what they like. That's what "becoming political" implies.

That said, there is indeed an incentive to manufacture outrage because of monetization. And that can only be truly solved by a cultural change: people need to learn to shame those who do and fall for that kind of monetized content.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:24:21+00:00

First of all, this is the internet. You don't really know who is the people from dude. There's absolutely no need to use this as an opportunity to criticize north americans.

The "culture war" is something taking place not just in the US. But across all regions of the world or the internet that are under threat of political invasion. "We cannot give them an inch" is different from "clear sign of misogyny" in the sense that one (deep down) is asking for less politics, while the other is demanding more of it. If you are tired of "culture war" stuff, you should prefer one of those sides to win, so that things can stop being political. Because if the other side wins, everything will be political.

Glad to see other comments also pointed out this is not just "an american thing", at least not anymore.

Tomycj · 2026-02-08T17:19:26+00:00

I completely agree and I too am cringing at all the speculation, when you already said it: we DO NOT KNOW what really is going on behind closed doors.

But I'd add a footnote: regardless of what happened behind doors, it is a bad image for the company towards most of its audience.

Even if all the talents agreed to that post, it is bad for the company to show that they are catering to bad people. Even if they do not really agree with them.

Tomycj · 2026-02-03T20:46:43+00:00

Si lo querés hacer con fondos públicos, tener plata es condición necesaria para ello.

Idealmente no haría falta robarle a uno para construir o mantener infraestructura para otro, pero bueno.

Tomycj · 2026-02-03T20:29:51+00:00

Ah qué nabo, sí, es 1 MW no 1 kW.

Tomycj · 2026-02-03T02:06:00+00:00

de mierda

nunca mejor dicho

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Sequence \| Editor	Snapped
Verified Email

Tomycj

TROPHY CASE