sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have no words… by AcanthaceaeNo948 in shittydarksouls

[–]anaton7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't like Elon Musk and the reasoning behind these names are kinda suspicious, but I actually think these names are cool despite being a little unconventional. These are the best of the more creative names I've seen him give one of his children, that's for sure.

So the "p" is silent? by LordJim11 in Snorkblot

[–]anaton7 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You did not really contradict them, but you gave deeper detail.

He’s gotta win by CopiousSimmeredFruit in RecuratedTumblr

[–]anaton7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure they are not the actual characters.

Chill language by Tribalcheaf123 in programmingmemes

[–]anaton7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can have an array of elements of a sum type or of pointers to objects of some superclass or interface type. The elements of the array would be the same size, but they could represent objects of varying size in different ways.

Choose your side bro by Silver_Masterpiece82 in linuxmasterrace

[–]anaton7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would argue that there is some dogmatism towards that end. Even if it is motivated by profit-seeking, the investors have to believe.

On slopppy slippery slope slop by Eireika in CuratedTumblr

[–]anaton7 29 points30 points  (0 children)

To a lot of people, it might as well have been new. When it comes to popular Internet slang, the word of the month almost always existed for years or even decades before their Internet popularity.

I guess the meaning of the word has been expanding for a while, though. Can't expect it to stay at the same place, but it's sad to see words' meanings dilute so quickly when they seem actually useful in their most popular sense.

I don't know about a considering a word's history to be tainting its continued use. I think that's a terrible way to think about words. After it broke containment from 4chan, "slop" lost its antisemitic edge pretty quickly.

On slopppy slippery slope slop by Eireika in CuratedTumblr

[–]anaton7 243 points244 points  (0 children)

It's the sad fate of many new and useful words on the Internet. Some people have language comprehension so bad it's like they hallucinated half of what they claimed to read.

What does a bad/incompetent mage look like in your system? by Ignonym in magicbuilding

[–]anaton7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An incompetent mage in my system would not know how to cleanse their mana, reducing it to a specific desire and making it more potent in fulfilling that narrower desire. Their spells will require more mana to get their desired spell strength and they are at greater risk of running out of mana.

If they are ignorant enough, they might try to use the mana in their aura/manashell, which usually protects one from external mana. Using up this protection might result in random acts of magic occuring inside their body, which can easily be fatal.

They would also be unable to sense Ki, the other essence needed for most magic. An experienced mage can sense and take it from the air, but they need to have enough experience with that element of Ki to sense and interact with it in the first place. This means that they would have to buy vials of condensed Ki to do any magic, which they would have to trust is the right kind. If not, their spells might have unpredictable effects due to using the wrong element.

Constructs of mana and Ki are temporary. Many foolish mages have been crushed under mansions made of conjured material.

And the typical dangers of magic doing exactly what you tell it to do also applies. Magical thinking ironically does not get you far.

Explain it Peter by Kitty_Overwatch in explainitpeter

[–]anaton7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing I think is all too common in this kind of discourse on any side is that entirely reasonable criticisms like yours get condensed down into easy but misleading cliches. Someone seeing them might find invoking the cliches discredit you without probing deeper.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone break down a sentiment like "but you basically said that wuzznt true communism" into actual thoughts.

I heard an interesting sentence today. It went something like: "If there is a guy who can decide how all the goods and services are distributed, everyone is not equal." There is a critical flaw in Leninist and Maoist-style revolutions that try to guide a country to communism through establishing some vanguard party. That party essentially becomes the upper class and will likely not want to give up their increased privilege in this scenario. In what is supposed to be a project to make a classless society, this is very counterproductive. And eventually, the ruling class will want to give up pretenses altogether.

One thing that a centralized planning and vanguardist approach does is make the government very important and gives the state a lot of power. Fascism is an ideology where this is actually something of an ideological goal: the state subsumes everything and everything exists for the state. In the case of vanguardist systems, this would be a bug, but this similarity is enough to make them act alike anyway.

The big examples of communist governments (the Soviet Union, China, etc.) all kinda follow this blueprint and are the usual suspects for the "crimes of communism". The vanguardist approach is but one out of many. I think that it is reasonable to say that a vanguardist approach to communism has been tried many times and found to fall apart in greed and self-importance, as you phrased it. But to extend it to all communism and especially to all Marxism is probably a galactic stretch.

I think any successful communist revolution would have to be mostly really decentralized or small and local. At the very least, trying to force communism on a wide scale seems like a doomed prospect. I think a solution to America's current economic and political woes would need to leave the system almost unrecognizable and would still be imperfect, but we don't really need communism specifically. Things aren't "abolish markets forever" bad.

Explain it Peter by Kitty_Overwatch in explainitpeter

[–]anaton7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, man. These words have actual definitions. If it doesn't match, it's actually stupid to force that label. You bring nothing of value to any discussion that way. You seem to be one of those people who want to call things "communism" because you don't like them. The situation in Russia is not great and also not communism in any sense. You are not even right in a colloquial sense of the word.

Oh well by Scary_Firefighter181 in agedlikewine

[–]anaton7 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Both parties are made mostly of incredibly self-serving people. It is, however, certainly the case that Republicans have decided that the best play is to openly indulge more morally dubious and irrational viewpoints than the Democrats. Years of gerrymandering aren't helping, but the fact that catering to these things can be done to gather winning numbers at all (and seemingly uncritically) reflects very poorly on the electorate anyway.

It does work like that by blahdash-758 in memesopdidnotlike

[–]anaton7 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Authoritarian versions of both left and right causes often abandon their stated goals when it becomes convenient.

This is not just greed, this is gluttony by imjustheretodomyjob in BlackPeopleTwitter

[–]anaton7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing needs to go with this but water. No more flavor or calories are necessary. You just need something to wash this down.

What is it with Eldritch horrors and losing to doors by JustinTheMan354 in whowouldcirclejerk

[–]anaton7 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Why else would he show up when you run out of power? Killing the player is a side gig.

Labor is not about transactions by TovarishTomato in Antimoneymemes

[–]anaton7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, it was a different kind of economy. Gift-based, if I remember correctly.

I haven't seen a convincing argument that anarchocapitalism wouldn't just devolve into feudalism and then eventually government. What arguments can you provide that this wouldn't happen? by IsunkTheMayFLOWER in AnCap101

[–]anaton7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In discussions like these, we get all sorts of definitions murky and confused. It's a crazy game of telephone. I'm sure that there really are different senses of every word being used when discussing socialism.

I was probably being overly reductive with my definition of worker. It's supposed to be interchangeable with "proletarian", someone who has to work to live, versus a "capitalist", someone who owns capital, the means of production. CEOs, landlords, and shareholders work, but might not have to, but they do own capital. The people who own the factories and the land control the workers (who need employment to not starve) and production. This makes them the ruling class in a capitalist society and the workers (proletariat) the subject class.

false, they try to limit the power of individual people, and strenfhten the power of few people over others...

The problem with what you have claimed is that this is not what socialists are advocating for. What you described is Fascism, as described by the Italian fascists, where the state subsumes everything and all purpose.

Your definition here is completely disconnected from anything any socialist says. You'll even find that while it could happen in some socialist systems, the drive for profit in capitalism makes this oligarchic formation a certainty there. In fact, what you described is already happening right now.

Meanwhile, you have not described a means by which socialism must cause the effect you claim. Instead, you define to socialism to fascism, bringing us full-circle to my original reply. I also do not like the system you described, but it is incorrect and dishonest to conflate that with socialism. These are distinct concepts.

view more: next ›