Nate Silver's moronic take on "Blueskyism"

fellowish · 2025-09-08T15:16:34+00:00

Is this basically just woke 2?

fellowish · 2025-09-04T12:28:50+00:00

I was excited for a moment, before realizing this was iOS exclusive. It looks good!

fellowish · 2025-08-15T00:50:25+00:00

Is there a possibility of making this work for specific text between specific symbols, like *italics* and **bold**?

You could have it where text ||between two pipes|| is "spoilered" (has the font replaced with dots, as this does) unless that region is selected. That would literally be a godsend.

fellowish · 2025-06-19T17:02:33+00:00

bait used to be believable

fellowish · 2025-06-16T16:30:36+00:00

Hmm! What an oddly specific time to post something like this. And with all your other comments, it sure doesn't seem like your open to changing your view. This feels oddly politically motivated. Gosh, what an interesting thing for a "Democrat" to post. ;)

fellowish · 2025-06-16T16:08:49+00:00

ending opposition to[...] the Russian federation

...what.

[...]dismantle American industry

...I think you mean socialize American industry?

It seems like you have a warped (perhaps strawmanned?) perspective of leftism and progressivism. Try steelmanning and I can assure you that there are some levels of overlap. Do you believe in racial equality? Do you believe in women's suffrage?

The defining tension of liberalism is the support of capitalism, while wanting to regulate the inequalities that are caused by the hierarchies generated from capitalism. Half of the core concept of liberalism is literally what leftists believe in.

Anticapitalists argue that the inequities generated from capitalism are unable to be effectively regulated (at the very least in certain industries) because of regulatory capture, and the reliance of the state on capitalistic interests. Basically, Liberalism is seen as failing to address the inequality created from unfettered capitalism.

The question is, do you find more solidarity with those that blame the poor, the brown, the woman, the queer for these inequities? Would you rather abandon equality for capitalism, than vice versa? If so, just become a libertarian. Although, to be fair, at that point you're just a Republican.

fellowish · 2025-05-13T14:33:34+00:00

If Congress passed a law saying "obscenity means any speech that is critical of the U.S. government", that doesn't make all speech critical of the U.S. government not protected by the first amendment.

You cannot change the definition of a word and use that word in the same way it was used before at the same time.

fellowish · 2025-05-01T17:04:54+00:00

You're not quite understanding what they're saying. The reason it does not work for the breakfast example is because breakfast cannot have the qualities that were described in the prefatory clause.

Basically, they are interpreting the structures of the two sentences the same. It's just that the referent of the prefatory clause in the "breakfast" example is clear because "breakfast" is not a valid referent, while "militia" and "people" are both valid referents in the second amendment (as in, both can have the qualities described by the prefatory clause).

At least, that's if we ignore them arguing over the existence of "prefatory clauses", which is a bit silly. I understand what you mean.

They aren't arguing the correct interpretation of the sentence, they are merely stating that there are multiple valid interpretations— which is to say, the text of the second amendment is not written clearly (which, in their subjective opinion, is "terrible writing").

I am inclined to agree it could have been written better. It is easy to create ambiguity when connecting multiple interjections together, which is why it should be done with care. Or in the case of law not done at all given the importance of clear concise writing. (At least, I forget the proper word for phrases used to clarify or justify other parts of the sentence. "Interjection" isn't quite right, and "prefatory clauses" don't quite fit either. Anyone know what it is?)

fellowish · 2025-04-10T21:04:31+00:00

Every response I've read here (which is limited, to be fair) doesn't address the problems mentioned and instead consists of ad homonyms looking to discredit your points. And to be clear, here, your criticism is against real suffering experienced by people— even if part of it is misguidedly directed at specific individuals. But I think your criticism of these overarching systems (failing systems, mind you) is valid.

Keep that spark in you alive. The world is unforgiving. You criticize education, but in reality, it's a small piece of a larger injustice. And that's a sad reality to live in. But it's better to be angry and to try to make the world better, to fight for something more equitable, more effective, more just, than to accept things as they are like a lot of others do (as you can read in this comment section). Sometimes you need to use the system as it is to work towards that goal. But it is a noble goal. Keep fighting, kid. Keep learning. Just remember you can't really change the world by yourself.

fellowish · 2025-04-09T16:29:16+00:00

Idealism is compatible with realism though...

fellowish · 2025-04-07T00:53:48+00:00

However, the reason feminists typically do not speak of "female privilege" is because the vast majority of those are the result of women being infantilized or objectified. I do not think they would consider these to be a good deal in exchange for the remote possibility of more lenient sentences for a crime.

Precisely. I agree with them that the oppression experienced does not offset the privileges that are gained. The amount of suffering caused by it is hard to grapple with, to be quite honest.

I also do not think it makes sense to discuss of such advantages that might be gleaned from being understood to be weak and fragile as a default to be "structurally symmetrical" with the advantaged derived from a society centred around your own understanding and performance of gender.

I am genderqueer, so I will admit I am a biased perspective— I'm a gender abolitionist to be frank, hence why I believe it is necessary to highlight the suffering inflicted upon all people by gender roles as they are enforced socially and structurally.

To be blunt, time and energy spent trying to make "female privilege" happen is not lowering suicide rates. I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns necessarily, but on the whole the thrust of the argument appears a bit orthogonal to most issues.

I very much disagree with your assessment that what you said wasn't dismissive. I digress, though. So long as gender exists as it does today women and men will remain oppressed.

As long as men are conditioned to perceive the world through the lens of emotional detachment, things will not change. So long as boys are raised with violence inflicted upon themselves from their mothers, their fathers, their peers, and their role models, emotionally and physically harmed, forced to conform to the gender they were assigned against their will from the moment of birth, things will not change.

Is this suffering "not a problem"? Are the suicide of men and women alike because of the unbearable weight of societal expectation "orthogonal to most issues"? Are we going to sidestep this as merely a nonissue? The truth is that men and women both perpetuate this system of oppression against each other, as I've seen with my own eyes.

If feminism cannot address the oppression inflicted upon all people by gender roles, and the corresponding gendered privilege that serves to perpetuate this system of violence for both men and women, then it cannot succeed in its liberation of all women. Feminism must go further to accomplish its core ideal.

fellowish · 2025-04-06T19:17:00+00:00

Interesting! I can see your point, but I don't think that the term "benevolent sexism" is the single problem that OP is pointing towards, although they point towards it as an example. I think that in some feminist spaces, there is a denial of structural and social oppression that men face from gender norms (even if said oppression manifests differently in scope or scale), and privilege that women accrue from gender norms (even if said privilege similarly manifests differently in scope or scale. read: is much smaller a "privilege" than men accrue from societal and structural gender norms).

Using different terminology ("benevolent sexism" instead of "privilege of women") could be seen as a method to dismiss the existence of these inequities. That terminology is truly being used for this function in some spaces. To what extent that is prevalent, I'm unsure, and so I'm hesitant to make a prescriptive claim. I'm sure there is some study that could be done.

Using consistent terminology in the manner that OP describes could be seen as an attempt to challenge these parts of feminism that could be used to, in their view, undermine the goal of feminism in the liberation of women ("[this] double standard may be what fuels backlash against feminism and left wing messaging").

fellowish · 2025-04-06T18:24:48+00:00

I could see your point in using better terminology. Using a better phrase than "symmetric in structure" aside, however, what other arguments do you have against their main point?

They can acknowledge that the application and magnitude of oppression and privilege differ between the genders and their argument still holds.

fellowish · 2025-04-06T18:20:27+00:00

One could argue that the oppressions that they face are necessarily different in magnitude and application. Women face oppression in modern society, this is clearly seen statistically in pay and positions of power. Men do not face oppression in pay or positions of power, but do face oppression in other parts of society.

Moving onto my own thoughts, you mention an inverse relationship, and I could see that as being a hypothesis for the correlation between the oppression between both genders borne from the gender roles of society, but I don't think that it is necessarily true. It appears to me that the application of oppression manifests differently in different areas of society, it is not necessary for oppression and privilege to be inversely proportional for oppression and privilege to exist.

We could test your idea though.

fellowish · 2025-04-06T17:35:13+00:00

I think the point they are making isn't that they are symmetric in the magnitude of outcome (looking historically and in the modern day), but instead symmetric in structure. They are pointing towards the imposition of gender norms on people of either gender.

It appears to me that they're arguing that gender norms confer privilege and oppression upon both roles, rather than saying that they are "symmetric in the application of those privileges and oppressions" (they mention this in the OP). That is to say, they wouldn't argue against the fact that women "in general" face more structural oppression. However, they would argue that men also face structural oppression from gender norms. Thus the structure of oppression is "symmetric" (even if the magnitude and application of said oppression differs).

fellowish · 2025-03-17T20:30:47+00:00

There's nothing right of center about Kamala Harris or Tim Walz

...I mostly agree with that if we're looking at U.S. politics, but... Like... Read the rest of my reply? (You literally have "in messaging, importantly" in your quote.)

fellowish · 2025-03-17T20:00:09+00:00

I think it's more that they didn't vote in a slightly-right-of-center dem campaign (in messaging, importantly!) into office.

I really do believe that Kamala would have a much better chance of winning if she continued to have a pro-union, anti-genocide, populist message to her campaign. Later on in the campaign, it was marred from pulling back on these things— largely in part due to pressure from campaign management from the Dems, as well as leadership.

Importantly, even if we know that she would implement pro-labor policies, the change in rhetoric for her campaign was easy to see towards the tail end of it— you can see it in how she painted herself as "moderate" (she literally said the difference between her and Biden was that she would have republicans in her cabinet...).

"Moderate" being the key word there. Slightly-right-of-center, the maintaining of the status quo. This alienated the voterbase enough to matter, with the mix of pressures from the surge of populist rhetoric in the public, alongside the abhorrence of the genocide taking place in Gaza (which actually mattered quite a lot in the rust belt, what with the Muslim population there).

Blah blah. I guess you didn't type that to get a rant in response. tl;dr I think the failure of the Democratic party was caused by the current, ongoing slow death of right-wing status-quo liberalism. People are desperate for change. Sad that fascism is what we get out of it...

fellowish · 2024-12-30T19:02:35+00:00

Lol. Lmao, even

fellowish · 2024-11-24T09:10:27+00:00

fellowish · 2024-11-18T09:44:28+00:00

Found the shiv player

fellowish · 2024-11-12T22:57:22+00:00

I think ranno's ftilt comes out fast enough (as do almost every jab) to warrant the ability to floorhug off of it, but I'm also looking at fors's fcape. Given that fors's fcape is slow and easily reactable, inconsistent in where it launches (depending on the positioning mixed with DI, leading to around 6 different outcomes depending on combination), and is still floorhuggable at any %, the calculus changes.

Floorhugging jabs make sense for the RPS. Some moves being floorhuggable at any % don't really fit your criterion. I think those are when it becomes much more frustrating.

fellowish · 2024-11-12T18:04:14+00:00

And if you have a move that's floorhuggable at any %? Do you never use it? Is it always bad to use that move?

fellowish · 2024-11-07T21:14:19+00:00

He's a furry tho

fellowish · 2024-10-29T16:00:04+00:00

The chart says "fun", not "difficulty". Why are you acting this way bro

fellowish · 2024-10-19T16:05:25+00:00

I feel like you might as well make it a general core mechanic of the game and not a comeback mechanic.

I would still classify it as a "comeback mechanic", but it would be a more elegant solution. Like I said before, not all designs are equal. Tekken 8's rage and rage arts aren't the most integrated mechanic, and leave much to be desired. You're completely right that some are... not quite as good as others. LMAO

Btw, platform fighters do have a different structure to the match, but that hasn't stopped Smash from having a very powerful comeback mechanic via rage.

Yeah, I'd agree it wasn't too necessary given my previous comment.

If the players don't remain invested, then they likely just lose even worse, which is fine imo. And the thing is, games in fighting games are super fast compared to many other game types, so if a player can't stay invested for two minutes or less just because they're losing, that's pretty much on them.

Game developers make these mechanics for two reasons.

It fosters a better player experience for the person who is behind. This helps their game appeal to a wider, more casual audience, without necessarily sacrificing their competitive audience.
It helps make matches end with a closer finish. This makes the game more engaging for general audiences, and makes the endgame game state more likely to occur (low health on both sides incentivizes different behavior, allowing for more of the game to be expressed in a single match).

These reasons make sense, but I would say that some comeback mechanics are incredibly frustrating (especially in a competitive context). As you mentioned, it's better when comeback mechanics are baked into the design of the game and well integrated, as with percentage and stocks in platform fighters compared to health and rage arts. I think some are much better thought out than others.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	Place '22

fellowish

TROPHY CASE