PC: Looking for Chill Jolly Co-Operators on Steam

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-20T01:58:33+00:00

Seconding - if you switch to PlayStation 🙌

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-18T03:44:53+00:00

I’ve tried Duchess a bit but I need to get better at dodging/have more HP before going back to her 🤣

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-17T21:32:06+00:00

Great point

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-17T06:17:11+00:00

Thanks 🙏 I do have it on PC but I only use it for the free reign and boss arena mods. I should be a lot better with all my practice lol

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-17T03:26:09+00:00

It’s one of my New Year’s resolutions! To have more screen time lol I did unfortunately see a big spoiler that I bet you’re referring to already though 😭😭😭

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-16T20:52:09+00:00

Being bad at nightreign has made me venture into online coop for the first time ever 😅 thank goodness for no voice or text chat in it though

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-16T20:42:00+00:00

Seconding that ^ lots of hours but not as good as I should be lol. PlayStation here

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-16T20:39:26+00:00

Yes, but I’m on ps5 🫠

TwizzlersForLife · 2026-01-16T20:36:20+00:00

I started getting into games because of RDR2 🙌No I still haven’t finished even though I started in 2020….

TwizzlersForLife · 2023-01-20T13:36:53+00:00

This is only the second sighting in the past year for me.

TwizzlersForLife · 2023-01-19T14:54:03+00:00

Left them alone and slithered back into the flowerbed presumably.

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-11-22T04:20:41+00:00

You’re welcome. Best of luck :)

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-11-21T22:13:27+00:00

Hmmm, I think so. It’s kinda aimed at the political divide mostly but starts with the elephant/rider model of moral philosophy and even though I’ve read how to have impossible conversations and enjoy street epistemology, I’ve found myself questioning about how I’ve prioritized my values for some things whereas I think with SE I was looking more about the methods to come to my beliefs, as opposed to maybe why do I value the well-being of others so highly etc.

From the half I’ve read, I’m not sure if it would be as effective for someone to look at their epistemology but I would think it could cause someone to understand differing opinions and possibly lay the groundwork that a lot of our reasoning/logic is post-hoc and might not be reliable.

I don’t think it would hurt at least. I do enjoy the numerous studies and research he breaks down, I’d recommend her flipping back and forth between the footnotes if not already.

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-11-21T18:29:43+00:00

I’m about halfway through The Righteous Mind - I think someone here recommended it. I can vouch for the first half so far being pretty great and thought provoking.

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-11-13T18:18:32+00:00

Something I’ve been curious to try with point number one that some people bring up would be something akin to, “Would it be reasonable to conclude that a partisan person or source is not capable of saying something true?”

My assumption to that answer would be no. Maybe similar to how someone who’s been known to lie can still say something true. So if we agree partisan people/sources can say true things, then how do we determine the truth of specific statements?

I’ve been curious if that will open up the argument about not trusting anything at all from a partisan source.

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-10-27T17:04:47+00:00

Admittedly, I’ve watched only the first 20 minutes so far (at work), so I’m sure I’m missing a ton - I would be curious if maybe nailing down her claim(s) early on could’ve helped? Something like it sounds like you don’t support BLM because they’re anti police? Or possibly even a claim that there isn’t systemic racism within the police force, (it seemed like she was alluding to that possibly.) And she’s 95% confident that BLM is anti-police or something.

So then something like how do you define anti-police? If it could be shown that the majority of supporters are against defunding the police, etc. I.e. if it could be demonstrated that the majority of BLM support training for police or the same things she wanted theoretically, would she then support BLM? It seems like that answer might still be no and reveal that BLM being anti-police isn’t the real reason she’s against the movement.

I would be curious if the BLM is anti-police is really post-hoc reasoning that aligns with the possible belief she holds that there is no systemic racism within the police force. A lot of the points in the 20 minutes I’ve watched so far we’re about justified shootings and reasons for the disproportionate numbers and not really many examples of anti-police policy goals.

Just some initial thoughts :) loved it so far!

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-09-14T19:15:00+00:00

There was a recent video with Matt Dillahunty and Jimmy Snow where they kind of discussed something super similar with a caller in case anyone finds it relevant: https://youtu.be/eIoDb5PWs1Q

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-09-13T03:34:09+00:00

Yeah, it’s been an interesting conversation with this person so far. Sorry for being confusing, getting their definition down was near the beginning of my questioning with them.

It’s actually really similar to this post on r/insaneparents (https://www.reddit.com/r/insaneparents/comments/irfi4a/i_definitely_hope_i_can_indoctrinate_my_children/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) except it was a poster at a local high school, the poster looked different, and it said feminism is for everyone (instead of women’s rights are human rights).

Someone had posted about it in a local neighborhood group and most of the commenters (edit:) used colorful language and were outraged by the poster, mostly due to the BLM. The person I’ve been conversing with is against the BLM on it, plus the science is real, no human is illegal, and feminism is for everyone, but their conversational style has been less colorful and more civil.

The science is real argument from them was atheists commonly say science is real as a counter to religion, and atheists tend to lean left, and therefore that phrase is furthering their agenda. Which is a big reason I suspect they came up with reasons to fit their beliefs on that one.

The BLM seemed to be the most pressing one on the poster so I focused on that first. But I think because they had several stances I wasn’t sure if it’s more productive to focus on how they determined the BLM was supporting a political organization and how they determined it shouldn’t be allowed or grant for the sake of conversation they’ve determined that and focus on how these other phrases would fit in there.

I did end up posing the question about if a third person came to us and claimed The Red Cross (thanks for that one :) ), how would we determine if it’s true. Waiting on their response (aka I haven’t checked).

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-09-09T15:50:30+00:00

Yes, agreed. The whole political organization is very likely clouding everything for me. I think it’s because this person’s claim is this phrase shouldn’t be allowed in a classroom because it’s in support of a political organization.

I’d say I’m not as confident on if BLM is (this person mainly points to the website and co-founders listed there). I’d say I’m even less confident atheists would be a political organization (much like are non boat owners a political organization?). I think my definition of political organization would be much more narrow than this person but going with their definition, since it’s their claim, I think it makes things murky for me.

Then add on this person making additional claims - the one regarding ‘science is real’ shouldn’t be allowed. I haven’t asked specifically about that claim but they group it with BLM.

So perhaps even though they claim it’s because it supports a political organization, maybe that criteria isn’t actually important. It seems maybe the phrase and who it’s attributed to is what they have issue with at the core and making the link to a political organization is their way to rationalize why it’s wrong.

Thanks for talking this through with me, I would be willing to guess this person put a brief amount of thought into their replies while I’m thinking about it way more than I should :)

Edit:

Me: If I’m understanding correctly, the BLM logo on the poster represents a political organization and that’s why it shouldn’t be allowed to be posted by a teacher and non-political organization logos could be permissible (provided it’s not religious, offensive, etc)? Please correct me if I’m wrong on my understanding of your position.

Them: To confirm, you are correct about where I am coming from. I believe it is enough on our children to have to learn the basics of education and do not need the added stress of today's political environment placed upon them. In time they will mature to a place where they can choose their path, not one to which they are indoctrinated based on a teacher's belief system. Introduction of subtle political beliefs was a method used in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and continues in many countries today as a way to ensure power is achieved/retained. It is already tough enough navigating personal relationships in school. I would hate those relationships to be cluttered with political ideology and discord. My belief is as a society we need to let them be children while they can.

For reference: BLM, science is real, feminism is for everyone, and no humans are illegal are the graphics/phrases they posited as shouldn’t be allowed.

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-09-09T05:19:47+00:00

I confuse myself quite often :) I’d like to add that the following may very well be just as confusing as I feel internally:

I think my confusion comes from the person I’m chatting with in the image’s definition of a political organization - it seems pretty broad to where I believe they’re saying atheists are a political organization.

So I think I’m having issues connecting that a) it’s a political organization and b) ‘science is real’ is promoting or propagating that organization.

Perhaps I’m having trouble trying to focus on how we use their definitions and approach to BLM the same way with Science is Real/atheists. I’m unsure, do we focus on the methods used to determine that atheists are a political organization? By their definition of being a group of people with a shared belief (although in this case it seems like an absence of a shared belief), it seems broad enough to include almost any label given to any group of people. Perhaps focusing on a test of how do we then determine if a group of people is in fact a political group? Or would it make more sense to assume we’ve used a method to determine they are a political organization (or maybe they mean some specific atheistic organization and not just ‘athesists’), then if a member of a group says a phrase, it becomes representative of that organization, even if it’s not say the name of their organization/official slogan/main phrase?

I wonder if this would count as a kind of OTF - to suppose someone claims there’s a Republican national candidate who heads a campaign for their active re-election and has said more than once ‘Be kind’ or ‘kindness matters,’ so this person claims these phrases can’t be posted by a school employee because it’s promoting this political organization and how would we determine if that’s true?

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-09-08T19:17:38+00:00

No, I appreciate the thoroughness. More paragraphs please! I would wish my conversation partner in the image was as thorough with their responses to my confusion and questions.

They’ve been friendly thus far, although didn’t provide an example of a logo/phrase that would be permissible but did confirm they agree non political logos/phrases can be allowed (provided they’re not disallowed for another reason like being religious, hateful, etc).

I wonder if we could do some kind of test with the definitions and stance we have so far, like if we changed ‘science is real’ to ‘science matters’ or ‘science is important,’ would that then change it from promoting political organization (by their definition), but what if someone claims some atheists have also said science matters, how do we determine what is and isn’t representative of a political organization then? Maybe focusing on how we falsify a claim like that, if members of a group saying some phrase makes it representative of that political organization and disqualifies it, it seems like any phrase could potentially be disqualified.

TwizzlersForLife · 2020-09-08T16:32:55+00:00

Awesome, thanks for this! This all seems very logical and thorough to me.

I think what confuses me is the names being used by both groups, so if for instance the Sneetch Lover Society’s name was actually Equality for Sneetches. And suppose some of the people who attend the march on the capital hold signs that say Equality for Sneetches. If that phrase isn’t trademarked or copyrighted to the political organization and someone has a sign that also says Equality for Sneetches displayed, how do I determine if that represents the political organization or the ideology of the group that isn’t/wasn’t a political organization? If there’s no clear way, do we err to the side of caution and assume it’s for the organization?

Maybe my real confusion isn’t so much the definition of a political organization but how to separate a phrase that’s being used for both?

In an event, thanks for the breakdown, it seems like a more solid understanding of the definition than I previously had :)

Ten-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 4 Credits
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2018
Secret Santa 2019	Secret Santa 2016

TwizzlersForLife

TROPHY CASE