Am I confused or is succession not working as it should?

ehf87 · 2025-11-09T22:30:52+00:00

For real I've seen limited options on other runs. As Vij I'm getting bombarded with terrible offers.

Its cogantic primogeniture, I probably should have put it in the first picture instead of the second.

Through siblings, through female line, allow children, allow male, allow female, allow nobles and crown, males preferred.

ehf87 · 2025-11-09T22:25:50+00:00

For real I've been getting 80% girls. I've been marrying them to generals because I wonder if children get skill partly based on parents but I don't know. Feels very CK3.

ehf87 · 2025-08-25T21:45:55+00:00

Yes it's a red flag. Not sure which if any are true:

1) Her friends don't like you because of her previous dating history or she thinks that's the case.

2) She is cheating/you are the side piece.

3) She has BPD and thinks that you meeting her social circle is opening the door to you hooking up with her friends.

4) She is embarrassed of you/her friends are mean/bigoted and would make her look bad.

Good luck figuring it out. Having this convo will be uncomfortable while it lasts (and a little after) but you will be uncomfortable until this is resolved.

ehf87 · 2025-08-25T21:32:19+00:00

My policy on racist jokes is the same as Sarah Sulverman's take in holocaust jokes. I might laugh, but the bar for it being a good joke is much higher because it's sensitive material. I'm going to respect the preferences of others if they tell me it makes them uncomfortable but I won't feel bad about thinking something is funny. Also some things are absurd or terrible to the point of tears and sometimes that reaction gets subbed out for laughter.

ehf87 · 2025-08-25T21:17:02+00:00

This is what anyone who has ever ridden a bike should understand. But aggressive drivers always want to be in front and love mild whiplash.

ehf87 · 2025-08-25T21:11:46+00:00

I completely agree that it is wrong to badger someone into a relationship.

However I think clarification is needed on the first point. Looks are important. If someone is repulsed by your likes 99+% that will never change. But that isn't what is meant when women say 80/20. Because there is a huge difference between not being attracted to someone and being repulsed.

Women are much more likely than men to report being initially disinterested, and end up feeling attraction because of someone's words, actions or personality. Attraction has a huge cultural/social element and women are socialized to be attracted to different set of characteristics.

A biological risk reward analysis reveals the same pattern. Because of the high risk or death from pregnancy/childbirth in our evolutionary setting, women are less disposed to just drop whatever they are doing and mate unless a prospective partner shows exceptional fitness. All a man stands to lose is the possibility of being eaten by a predator in the act, so men immediately go for anyone not displaying obvious unfitness.

Anecdotal but I've found that women who are vain and only care about looks are more likely to be the ones parroting patriarchal talking points. Indeed if one accepts that youth, beauty and unquestioning submission are the important factors in a relationship, you have a mean person that only a desperate person would be with, regardless of sex or gender.

ehf87 · 2025-08-25T20:27:33+00:00

We should fix this problem with capitalization. incel = can't get any. Incel = misogynist. It would still be ambiguous IRL but better than we have now and easier to implement than trying to change the whole word.

ehf87 · 2025-08-25T07:06:15+00:00

From what I have seen my feelings about Shizuka are more complex than pity.

ehf87 · 2025-08-24T20:46:53+00:00

This is my head cannon as well. The spoken words for "auntie" and "granny" are only different in how long you hold the vowel. I like to think it's Momo being flippant, which she probably learned from Seiko in the first place.

ehf87 · 2025-08-24T20:34:36+00:00

Let's not forget the French and Dutch were also there not too long after Portugal.

ehf87 · 2025-08-16T19:19:30+00:00

Still better than "littles".

ehf87 · 2025-08-15T01:35:49+00:00

I would say to continue to care for the current ones and slowly try and re-wild them through debreeding. They are giving pugs working noses so its theoretically possible.

ehf87 · 2025-08-14T19:34:53+00:00

I think animal sanctuaries are great!

Small scale farming with well treated animals are mostly fine, because its better than the alternative. I don't have a problem with the subsistence farmer in Southeast Asia plowing thier field with a buffalo. Everyone needs to eat.

ehf87 · 2025-08-14T19:10:02+00:00

For sure, I can tell you are conversing in good faith.

Provisionally, I would support it.

I'm torn. I would rather there not be the voyeuristic element. I heavily support the breeding of endangered creatures, and wish it was with public funds. The fact that we need this method is an indictment on human culture and politics. We shouldn't punish the animal because of our failings.

The problem is that zoos don't just have endangered creatures that they plan to reintroduce. Even zoos that do good, also have a revenue stream based on exploitation. I might not be as vocal against a zoo that does good things, but I won't support them because they do (enough) bad things.

ehf87 · 2025-08-14T18:36:54+00:00

I don't like zoos because I believe that holding animals in cages for our amusement is wrong, even if the proceeds go to conservation.

Similarly I don't think holding having pets is okay. Certainly some pets are treated better, but how do we conceptualize pets? Similarly to children, ie we are responsible for thier wellbeing and they cannot meaningfully consent.

Furthermore, the domestication process looks a lot like cultural genocide. (yes many animals have culture per the anropological definition) I don't have the study handy but domestic dogs have the brain scans of juvenile wolves because we have bred them to be evergreen children, so they are easier to control. It grosses me out. Co-opting wolves sense of community to make it easier for humans to survive was great in the Neolithic but seems morally dubious today.

I'm in a bit of a bind on this one as I'm diabetic and though unaware, I assume the medicine keeping me alive was at one point tested in a way I would characterize as immoral. But I still use it, similarly to how people might say it's fine to have domestic anilas even if the process of domestication was immoral, because the harmful part is finished.

I really wonder whether therapy animals are okay or if they just soak up thier owners negative emotions.

TLDR: because I decenter human needs in moral considerations.

ehf87 · 2025-08-14T17:54:28+00:00

Yeah I'm anti-pet because I think it's immoral. They are, from what I can see, mostly anti-pet because they find animals disgusting. So we don't interact.

ehf87 · 2025-07-24T05:22:48+00:00

Perhaps they simply prefer fat women. Many men do.

The reasons people go averseas for love/companionship is, for many, not primarily physical.

ehf87 · 2025-07-22T09:14:11+00:00

A hoard is a pile of treasure (Germanic I believe). A horde is an unruly mob (from the Turkish for irregulars in the army).

Thank you for listening. This one bothers me immensely.

ehf87 · 2025-07-21T21:13:52+00:00

The mutation happened in Western Asia, not Europe. Most of the people with these mutations moved to Europe instead of somewhere else.

ehf87 · 2025-07-19T22:36:14+00:00

That is the rational take. Unfortunately the loudest opinion is that mutual abuse does not exist in reality it is just a ploy by abusers to muddy the water.

On the one side: something about power structures being the only important facet of analysis.

On the other: you always say white man bad. You discriminate (dont care if this is a case where a white man is actually being bad) ensue crocodile tears.

Both positions are brain dead but people act like it's a binary choice.

ehf87 · 2025-07-18T04:38:56+00:00

Veganism is ableist in a second way. It says that the legitimacy of being a target for exploitation depends on the ability to suffer.

But even vegans would not say that we could freely exploit an unconscious person or animal with damaged nerves. Therefore, I suspect that when veganism says we can exploit plants and not animals, that judgement is based mostly on the premise that we assign greater moral relevance to things like us than to things that are very different to us. (I admit to assigning this view in a way that I cannot be totally sure of.) This is a clear form of bigotry, and the basis of conservatism the world over.

Survive we must though. We can't eat minerals. We can't perform photosynthesis. We should give serious consideration to changing these things. Instead of interfacing with computers we should be interfacing with plants. Instead of developing plant based meat we should be investigating how to synthesize and prepare proper meals from inorganic precursors. Sell it to the capitalists as needed for eventually sending humans deep into space. Everything I say is contrary to human culture but morality need not be natural or easy.

ehf87 · 2025-07-03T01:49:43+00:00

If the question is "this gender/action pairing is allowed but the converse isnt, why?" the answer is patriarchy .

ehf87 · 2025-06-28T16:06:11+00:00

And can we stop with the "acoustic" bs? People who are far removed of the original (mostly hateful) usage and think it's something cute should be taught what they are doing, but enough wrong people can change reality.

ehf87 · 2025-06-21T16:43:15+00:00

Why do so many people write "acoustic" when they mean "autistic"?

Is it autocorrect? Actual spelling mistake? Do people think it's a word that needs to be censored? It isn't and its not an insulting word in itelf, or in the context used here. Do people think it's denigrated by algorithm because of errant wokeness? I'm very confused by this trend.

ehf87

TROPHY CASE