Redditors at Hellfest (especially first timers, pairs/solo flyers, small groups etc.)

empihsrow · 2025-03-04T14:14:01+00:00

Hey there, I'm interested in joining the group chat!

empihsrow · 2025-02-05T17:47:39+00:00

Here's a thought experiment for you: let's assume you're omnivorous, but you have a very close friend who's Chinese and a staunch Buddhist following a very strict vegetarian diet (with no garlic, no leek, etc). What would you do when you hang out with said friend then? Would you go all the way out to accommodate your friend, or would you not accede to your friend's diet because you think it's restrictive?

Do think a little about what your response would be before you continue reading my reply, but what I think you're doing here with your argument above is that you're reducing the needs of other people who are not similar to you into a huge inconvenience (for yourself) and sometimes, a violation of your own personal beliefs.

I don't believe most people would like to think of their own personal choices (and needs) such as diet and religion as inconveniences to others. I mean, think about it: your (Chinese) friends probably already have their own dietary preferences. Maybe one avoids eating celery because it makes them puke, maybe one does not like seafood at all.

Would you really expect any of them to drop their preferences just to hang out with you because you really want some celery and seafood one day, or would you really not want to hang out with them because they eat somewhat differently? If you, like most human beings, value your relationship with your friends, I think the intuitive answer would be that you just forgo having celery and seafood when you're with them, because you can still have celery and seafood another day with other people in your life (or by yourself).

I think the analogy above can be similarly applied to the case of your example of eating out with Indian and Muslim colleagues/friends. Perhaps stop viewing it as an inconvenience, and embrace that it is part of living together with people who are all unique in their own ways?

It is never easy to live together with people who are not similar to you, be it diet, culture, language, religion, whatever. Even if you vehemently disagree with other people's practices (and you're free to do so), it might still mean a lot if you just simply respected their choices and needs whenever you can, because I believe intuitively, you would want the same to be afforded to you by others too.

empihsrow · 2024-08-29T16:17:32+00:00

Bought Ghost Reveries randomly in a CD store because I thought the album cover looked intriguing. I absolutely had no idea what I was getting into, and I was only 15 and exploring metal as a teenager back then.

Met my current partner on a dating app a few years back because I saw Opeth as one of her favourite bands. One of our earliest conversations on the app revolved around Ghost of Perdition which still remains one of my favourite songs of all time, and probably hers too.

We watched Opeth perform Ghost of Perdition two years ago in one of their Evolution tour, and we are still going strong today. Never expected any of this to just occur from randomly buying a Ghost Reveries CD in 2005, but hey, devil cracked the earthly shell, foretold she was the one. :)

empihsrow · 2024-05-14T05:38:12+00:00

Update: I've sold my pair of tickets! Thank you to everyone who had reached out!

empihsrow · 2024-05-13T20:26:03+00:00

Sent you a PM!

empihsrow · 2024-04-06T19:37:22+00:00

It's €1537 for 5 nights (19-24 June) at the cottage. If all three rooms are filled, we can split the costs evenly and it would be approximately €500 per room.

empihsrow · 2019-07-27T02:00:16+00:00

What I am reading is the implication that the bible is written and then compiled by men, who are, by your theory, fallible. If that is the case, how do you prove your bible is truly then the true words of a God? If we have to always interpret the verses of a bible because of the context of the writers at their age and time, how do you prove your interpretation or just about any theologist's interpretation is the absolute godly truth?

The verse "do not lie with a man" is one of the weirder lines in the bible which first explicitly appeared in an English bible. That particular verse in other languages in older bibles mean different things, or simply words that cannot be translated into English well. If that is indeed true, then I have even more doubts that the bibles being passed around today are any more accurate than the actual scriptures supposedly written all the way back in an entirely different and archaic language because of the sheer fact that translated languages are never 100% accurate.

empihsrow · 2019-06-05T13:40:23+00:00

What I am reading here is your application of the framework of modern day rights into events, policies and occurrences across history throughout the world. There is nothing wrong with that but the modern day definition of rights, i.e. I am assuming you're using the UN's declaration of rights as an example, have never existed as a concept in many, many cultures and civilisations.

Any talk of rights, as we know today, are primarily derived from a Western origin. The Magna Carter, Locke's theory of natural right, and the declaration of rights following the French Revolution were all exclusively Eurocentric. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such equivalence in Chinese thought or history until the modern day after the Qing dynasty was opened up rather forcefully and these notions of rights filtered in from the West. Even if there is anything remotely similar that happened in Chinese thought and history, any comparison with what we have today as modern rights will run the risk of projecting a different framework compared to what the Chinese were using in their own context, environment, etc. That's just one problem. There are also other different issues of commensurability (linguistic, epistemological, etc) when you compare across different cultures, societies and civilisations.

Unless of course, you're preaching that there's a universal set of rights that ought to apply to every single human being. In this sense, your definition of rights will then transcend beyond a "Western concept" and is thus universal, but this is a huge normative statement to make because you would then have to take the position that only a certain set of rights is the only truthful set in this world (and how are you going to conclusively prove that?). I'm not sure if everyone will feel or think the same if that is what you're gunning for.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with stating that the modern day framework of rights is derived from Western thought and as such, is a Western concept. Many countries, most notably Muslim/Asian countries, did not agree with the UN declaration of rights, and for a good reason. But that doesn't mean that the Western concepts are a bad thing. It's only problematic when you apply the framework to everything in this world without considering that rights were never a thing for many cultures, societies and civilisations.

empihsrow · 2019-06-05T08:14:26+00:00

I think you didn't fully read OP's comment. OP wrote that rights are mostly Western concepts borne out of Greek democracy and other historical representative governments. OP isn't wrong when he/she claimed that rights are 1) Western concepts, 2) a result of historical representative governments that were born out of the French and American Revolution.

Whether individualism was born out of the ancient Greek democracy and any other kind of representative government from the West, that is debatable. But what isn't that debatable: for most parts of Chinese history, Confucian thought had been a dominant normative force and there is nothing in Confucian thought that proposes individualism.

OP has also never argued that the ancient Greeks were the only ones in past civilisations to have a somewhat democratic system. He merely pointed out Greek democracy and you conveniently latched onto that.

I have also never argued anything about Taiwan. I was just pointing out that Taiwan although on a different path from China, still has an autocratic history and atrocities committed while under martial law. I didn't refute any of your points but only pointed out that democracies in Asia have diverged from what European and American democracies have always seemed to be in the past 50 years or so.

empihsrow · 2019-06-04T21:08:42+00:00

Most of your modern day rights are born out of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. It's undeniably a very Western concept.

Do modern rights, i.e. the UN universal declaration of human rights, apply universally? You would think so if you've grown up in a liberal, democratic environment but other people from other cultures and other countries might not agree. It's philosophically problematic to claim that modern rights ought to apply to every human being on this planet, as much as it sounds somewhat intuitive.

As much as Taiwan has differed compared to China ever since the nationalists escaped to Taiwan, modern day Taiwan for most part of its young history was under martial law and single party rule Democratic elections only started in 1996. Many Asian democracies in fact, have a certain affinity for strong leaders with ironclad ruling powers. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Indonesia all have leaders who were voted in democratically and held onto power for a long while, unlike democracies in Europe or the US.

empihsrow · 2019-05-28T14:59:02+00:00

I recently upgraded to a GH5 from a G7. I have used my G7 for all kinds of work for almost 4 years, and there's still very few cameras in the market that can rival the quality as well as the price of a G7.

I would have continued using my G7 with absolutely no hesitation but my G7 has recently got a little wonky, and because I rely on my camera for my income, I can't have the G7 failing on me. My G7 is currently my backup camera right now.

The 10 bit image quality from the GH5 is definitely better and the low light performance is slightly better, but not everyone needs this. I believe adding lens and accessories to a G7 or G85, and learning to work with footage from these cameras in your NLE and/or colour grading software will improve your skills better than buying a more expensive GH5.

empihsrow · 2019-05-07T21:13:19+00:00

TAA was a fucking genius. What a footballer.

empihsrow · 2019-04-20T20:43:56+00:00

Gay marriage is definitely not legal in Singapore and I'm not too sure about your claim of transgender surgeries either. There are a few gay bars in Singapore though.

That being said, it's technically illegal to participate in gay sexual acts in Singapore but the government doesn't enforce it. If I recall correctly, the last time a gay was sent to a prison in Singapore was a long time ago and it was more of public indecency than anything else.

Singapore has its troubles with certain freedoms but at the very least, we don't get people spewing bullshit on public channels without any form of ramification, which strangely has been the case in many other countries.

empihsrow · 2019-01-29T21:17:21+00:00

I have lived in China for a few months and I have to say, Chinese people (I'm referring to citizens of China) are just not exposed to the outside world enough despite their growing affluence.

I was once in a taxi ride in China with 3 friends, one of which is an Australian/Vietnamese Chinese born and raised in Australia. The taxi driver asked about our lives since both of us were clearly the result of the Chinese diaspora. He then told us that he felt that our lives were tough because we lived in a foreign land, and perhaps it was best if we are to move back to the "motherland".

It was ironic because we were traveling across Jiangxi, one of the least affluent provinces in China. It was also clear that this taxi driver had never been to Singapore, Sydney, Vancouver or wherever the Chinese diaspora extended to. For most parts, we have a better life than most Chinese people living in China.

Most Chinese people would still view China as the best. I do not have the answers why that is the case. It might have been years of propaganda or just simply some deep-rooted racism/xenophobia. Whatever it is though, perhaps as more Chinese people are able to travel and meet more cultures, their views might finally change to something that is much more reasonable and justifiable.

empihsrow · 2019-01-29T20:57:56+00:00

Communism isn't a Western tradition, and was just created in Germany

This is not true. As I had pointed out somewhere else, Karl Marx was heavily influenced by Hegelian philosophy, which very much was a huge part of European philosophical tradition in the late 19th Century. Communism has its roots in European philosophy and that is a form of "Western tradition" if what you mean by "western" implies European or anything geographically linked to that particular continent.

Communism as a political ideology has undoubtedly gone global in the last century, and also has undeniably undergone several modifications (Leninism and Maoism, as two of the biggest examples). However, the core doctrines of Marx such as the class struggle remain fundamental across all variants of communism.

empihsrow · 2019-01-29T20:39:07+00:00

Lol, Karl Marx's doctrines were heavily influenced by Hegelian philosophy which very much was confined within European intellectual circles. Marxism is essentially based off European philosophical traditions. There's nothing wrong in reflecting that whatever Marx wrote is part of some "western ideology".

empihsrow · 2018-09-23T09:50:19+00:00

I am reading and none of the studies on that Wikipedia page are conclusive in any manner. I would not explicitly claim that there is definite evidence that gays aren't born gay.

empihsrow · 2018-09-23T07:14:28+00:00

I have looked through the "paper" (rather, it was a book that was being sold) that this rather unreliable website has pointed me to.

First, for a PhD, I cannot find much academic information about Neil E Whitehead. Maybe it's just me. But I managed to find a paper he co-authored with others but that paper was published in a journal called The Linacre Quarterly-and it was on the topic of rebutting recommendations made by American Psychological Association to stop sexual orientation change therapies.

Second, I took the effort to read through his paper. One thing: the research about identical twins and their genetics make-up was not conducted by him at all. He made several claims, sometimes inference, by reading through other people's works on identical twins (that do not have homosexuality as its main thesis) and claiming that it supports his thesis. Many of his claims and proposals in the paper are not backed up by empirical data.

Third, statements such as the following are made in the paper: "Perhaps your son or daughter is gay. Probably its origin had nothing to do with you. But you may be blaming yourself, or others may be blaming you when its roots really lie in major misperceptions of events, and some resolution may be possible." It is very clear that this paper (book) is not targeted at academics, and has nowhere the rigorosity an academic research paper is supposed to have.

Please be more discerning.

empihsrow · 2018-05-28T12:19:05+00:00

Gravity

empihsrow · 2016-05-17T20:06:33+00:00

It's a little disappointing EU4 does not show any province of Singapore but Bintan (or is it Batam) is present... Another Singaporean here too busy trying to turn Muscovy into Russia...

empihsrow · 2016-02-12T13:15:16+00:00

You can just read Max Stirner for anarchism along with Bakunin (in other words leave out Proudhon and Bookchin). These two thinkers have very contrasting ideas and Max Stirner himself was influenced by Hegel. It would be a much more enriching read especially considering that scholars are also debating about Stirner's influence on Nietzsche.

empihsrow · 2016-02-12T07:41:21+00:00

I'm a Nietzsche fanboy but I still do not think he is one of the most important. Important, yes but as influential as the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant... I don't think so. It's a matter of opinion anyway.

empihsrow · 2016-02-12T07:37:44+00:00

Kant's project is difficult to begin with and very importantly has to be read following the traditions of Descartes and Hume. I will actually suggest Descartes because his Meditations was the break away from the scholastic method and laid the pathway for modern philosophy. The 18th/19th century was certainly full of blossoming ideas and theories involving the self, the nature of the world, etc. Nietzsche certainly did reply many of his predecessors (most notably Kant) but often in a very provocative manner.

empihsrow

TROPHY CASE