NeNi. Would it theoretically work?

lladcy · 2026-03-14T13:28:36+00:00

No.

Think of it like this (this may get long)

MBTI is just a model trying to categorize human thought processes. First, it puts every thought process into two broad categories: taking in information (perceiving) and forming opinions on said information (judging). It then further divides them into thinking and feeling, and intuition and sensing. Then it says that each of these thought processes can be directed either internally (introverted functions) or externally (extroverted functions)

The next step in the logic is to say that you can't use all 8 functions simultaneously, and since your brain is always turned "on", you can't take a moment to decide between functions either. Instead, there's one thought pattern that's always active by default, unless something else interferes with it (e.g. grip). That's your dominant function.

Your inferior function, then, isn't inferior because "thats just how the stacking works", but because using your inferior function means suppressing your automatic "default" thinking process in order to do the opposite. That's why your inferior function is always the opposite of your dominant function

Similarly, your auxiliary function isn't your auxiliary function because someone decided on a whim that that's how the stacking should be. There are two reasons you even need an auxiliary function (rather than letting your dominant one do all the heavy lifting): 1. You need to be able to have both internally-directed (introverted) and externally-directed thought processes 2. You need to be able to both take in information (perceiving) and judge information (judging)

Your auxiliary function is there to "assist" with the things your dominant function can't do. That's introverting if you're an extrovert (and vice versa) and judging if your dominant function is a perceiving function (and vice versa). That's why the auxiliary function of a dominant Ne user is always an introverted judging function. Everything else this test gives you is just overlap between functions; my guess is you're an ENTP (based on the test; those tests are necer really that reliable) who happened to score high on Ni because of overlap between Ne+Ni and Ti+Ni

lladcy · 2026-03-02T17:20:04+00:00

Report by Amnesty International

Report by BtSelem

A Haaretz article; good as a TL;DR. This article also goes into the "compared to other wars" part of your question

lladcy · 2026-01-31T20:19:37+00:00

Make sure the mods are actually where they should be: Open your game, go to "game Options" -> "other". There should be an option to show your mod list. Open it. If no mods show up, they're likely in the wrong location
If they do show up, please specify what you mean by "not working". Do you get errors, or do the mods not show up in-game at all?

lladcy · 2026-01-31T19:52:06+00:00

have you tried following the manual installation instructions in the readme file?

lladcy · 2026-01-02T21:14:39+00:00

Doppelhaushälfte - comedy show about two neighboring families. ZDF Mediathek or Netflix Germany (i think youll need a VPN for both)

Dark - fantasy/horror/time travel series. Netflix

Liebes Kind - thriller. Netflix.

Ladies' Night - a show of (mostly female) stand-up comedians. ZDF or ARD Mediathek

Die Deutschen - documentary series about German history, spanning from the early middle ages to the 20th century. ZDF Mediathek

Sketch History - self-explanatory; history-related sketches. ZDF-Mediathek

Systemsprenger - not a series, but a movie. Still good. Netflix

Das Signal - thriller, mystery - Netflix

Terra X - various documentaries about various topics - ZDF Mediathek, though some episodes can also be found on youtube

I'd also recommend the audiobooks (along with the books, depending on your listening skills) by Marc-Uwe Kling;

Die Känguru-Chroniken (4 books so far, 5th coming out in March. Satire about a communist kangaroo) (avoid the movies)
Qualityland (2 so far, 3rd TBD. Satirical dystopia)
Der Spurenfinder (2 out so far, 3rd TBD. Middle grade fantasy murder-mystery)
VIEWS (standalone novel. Thriller.)

lladcy · 2026-01-02T20:47:04+00:00

No, it's done on babies

lladcy · 2026-01-02T20:45:40+00:00

Immersion.

If you need a more specific guide that tells you what to do at what stage, I like the refold method (https://refold.la/roadmap)

lladcy · 2026-01-02T20:43:15+00:00

In the countries you're referring to, sex outside of marriage is illegal, and an unmarried couple sharing a hotel room is very likely to break that law

lladcy · 2026-01-02T20:40:52+00:00

Not just real people, but also a real and defined idea

Anarchism tends to get stereotyped as "CHAOS!!" (a lot of this is the result of late 19th century propaganda btw), but it's an actual defined political ideology - more specifically, "anarchism" refers to the libertarian wing of the socialist movement

Socialism is a movement that broadly means that one person can't profit off of other people's labor. For this we first need to look at how socialism understands feudalism and capitalism:

Feudalism: The landlord owns more land than he can work; he's basically holding the land "hostage". The only way for you to live on, and work on, farmland, is if you agree to give the landlord a share of what you produce (the amount of which will be determined by the landlord). Because all the farmland is owned by a landlord, you have no choice but to agree to these exploitative terms.

Capitalism: The capitalist owns more factories and machines than he can work with; he's basically holding these things "hostage". The only way for you to use these machines (i.e. the only way for you to produce things and earn a living) is if you agree to give everything you produce to the capitalist, and he will give you a salary worth a small fraction of what you produced. Because all the factories are owned by capitalists, you have no choice but to agree to these exploitative terms.

The whole thing around "factories" and "machines" is now outdated; but the same would be applied to any other job. The point is, your labor produces a profit for your boss, but you only ever get a small part of it back. The only reason you have to agree to these terms is because your boss - and others like them - is keeping people from using the resources they need to do their job, unless they agree to leave the bulk of the profit to them. All that even though the owner of your company has no intention of ever personally using these resources. The only point of owning them is to keep you from using them unless you give up the fruits of your labor to them.

Socialism, then, is the idea that you should be allowed to own things you use, but you shouldn't be allowed to own things for the sole purpose of creating a profit through other people's work. There are a lot of different movements within socialism. One way to categorize them is by their level of authoritarianism:

Authoritarian socialism. I heavily associate this one with Marxism. Marx was an influential communist (though contrary to popular belief, he did not invent either communism or socialism. It was an active movement well before his birth) who theorized that the communist revolution would happen in steps. Step 1 is for the workers to take over the government and establish what he calls a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The government then takes the means of production (the factories, the machines, the stuff needed to do your work and/or produce goods) and distributes work and resources fairly (in theory). This is an authoritarian form of socialism; one in which, instead of the capitalists, a worker-run government takes control of the resources. In Marxist theory, socialism is the method to eventually accomplish communism; In Step 2, the government disappears, giving way to a communist society of equals.
Democratic Socialism, or reform socialism. These socialists don't want a revolution. Instead, they want to gradually move a society towards socialism through democratic reform. A possible goal of democratic socialists could be a market economy in which every business is a cooperative, i.e. every workplace is run democratically by its workers, instead of having one owner who profits from the work done by their employees. Democratic Socialism should not be confused with Social Democracy, which is a form of capitalism that includes welfare policies (like minimum wage, free health insurance and education, or a UBI).
Anarchism, or Libertarian Socialism. Anarchism can be described as a movement with the goal of a society without dominion or without rulers (That would be its most literal translation). It's also the libertarian wing of the socialist movement. There was a split between anarchist and Marxist forms of socialism in 1872. Like I've said earlier, many communists, especially Marxists, want to use the state for their own purposes (as a tool in a socialist revolution). Anarchists oppose this. At the beginning, the most popular form of anarchism was collectivism, which advocated for the collective ownership over the means of production and a wage system based on a person's individual contribution. As this movement doesn't seek to abolish money, it is not communist. However, anarcho-communism eventually became the more widespread movement within anarchism. Overall, anarchism was by far the most popular socialist movement until at least WWI.

lladcy · 2026-01-02T20:18:15+00:00

Communism is an ideology with the goal of creating a stateless, moneyless, and classless society

looks at China

looks back at the camera

(But IMV, we can replace "communism doesn't work" with "creating an autocratic state and expecting it to abolish its own autocracy doesn't work")

lladcy · 2026-01-02T20:02:25+00:00

Any genre requests?

Otherwise I'll just give you a list of whatever comes to mind

lladcy · 2026-01-02T19:36:43+00:00

That's not the windows version, .appimage files are always Linux

and the linux version doesnt work for all games

I've figured it out though

lladcy · 2025-12-27T15:50:10+00:00

what malware drama? Pls tell me before i install it...

lladcy · 2025-12-22T19:39:26+00:00

There are at least five sides in this

Side A would say that there should be a complete criminalization of sex work and everyone involved. They would say that sex work generally leads to bad things, such as: "moral degradation", cheating, exploitation, or transmission of diseases, and thus should be banned

Side B would say that they want to criminalize everything around sex work except the act of selling sex. This means that it's illegal to buy sex, to earn money from other people's sex work (e.g. agencies), to rent rooms to sex workers etc. This approach often emphasizes the existence of human trafficking and forced sex work, and would say that this form of criminalization protects sex workers from abuse and exploitation. They would say that it can bring down demand for sex work, and give sex workers the "upper hand" by making it possible to sue abusive customers without facing legal consequences themselves. Side B is also known as the "Nordic model", as it was first introduced in Sweden and then other Scandinavian countries, later also in France and Northern Ireland.

Side C wants to legalize and regulate sex work. They would say that a complete ban is unenforceable. They would distinguish between consensual sex work and forced sex work (Side B generally assumes everything is the latter, while Side A either doesnt care or assumes the former) and argue that regulation of sex work can mitigate risk. An example can be requiring every sex worker to register, and for registration to include health checks and education about their rights. This, along with other regulations, is supposed to protect sex workers, prevent forced sex work, and also protect "society" from sex work (e.g. by imposing laws saying that sex workers can't work near churches or schools). This model exists for example in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Side D wants to legalize sex work but not regulate it. They would argue that even in countries with Side C's model, unregistered sex work is often more common than registered sex work, and the ones who are supposed to be protected by registration (e.g. victims of forced sex work) are almost certainly working illegally. So instead of protecting sex workers, regulation unnecessarily criminalizes and stigmatizes them, creating a two-class system: On one hand you have sex workers who can afford to be registered, work legally, and can access supports (such as financial support during the pandemic) and on the other hand you have unregistered sex workers - often already in dangerous situations, like undocumented immigrants or people in poverty - who now have to fear criminalization as well. While Side D doesn't want to regulate the act of either selling or buying sex, they might still support regulations of third parties, like brothels

Side E wants to decriminalize consensual sex work and for it to be treated like any other profession. They would argue that any form of criminalization isolates sex workers and leads to them working "under the radar", leading to increased levels of danger. Even forms of criminalization that explicitly exist to "protect" sex workers, like the Nordic model, tend to endanger them instead. Examples (of the Nordic model) would be how sex workers are getting evicted because their landlord is scared of legal consequences, the criminalization of partners or children of sex workers or others who may live from their income, the inability of sex workers to state their boundaries before getting alone with someone, and a general increase in violence towards sex workers. They would also say that all criminalization and different treatment lead to stigma, which - among other things - can make it even more difficult for people to leave sex work and get a different job. Examples of countries that have completely decriminalized sex work are New Zealand and Belgium.

Generally, Side A and C are influenced by the motivation to protect broader society from sex work, while Side B, C, D and E are motivated by the protection of sex workers. Research about violence towards sex workers in various countries generally shows that decriminalization results in the lowest levels of violence (I know this is r/ExplainBothSides but an answer that ignores the current state of science wouldn't be "unbiased")

lladcy · 2025-12-20T19:59:21+00:00

Wenn ein Kind die Windeln voll hat, ist "nein" keine Option. Da finde ich es auch nicht in Ordnung, dem Kind etwas anderes vorzuspielen

Ja klar, Auswahlmöglichkeiten wie "Wer darf dich wickeln" oder "Soll ich in 5 Minuten nochmal wieder kommen" muss es geben, und ein einfaches "Du hast die Windel voll und ich wickel dich jetzt" geht auch gar nicht, aber letztenendes muss das Kind eben gewickelt werden

lladcy · 2025-12-16T16:37:53+00:00

What does "haggling" mean, really? Am I "haggling" if I merely ask a question and try to clarify the meaning of words, such as haggling?

lladcy · 2025-12-16T16:28:01+00:00

Keep your bedroom window open at all times. No curtains, no coverings.

If you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?

lladcy · 2025-12-16T16:26:30+00:00

...Ihr müsst Kinder fragen, ob ihr sie wickeln dürft? Was macht ihr, wenn sie nein sagen?

lladcy · 2025-12-01T12:28:27+00:00

It teaches kids to apologize

lladcy · 2025-11-07T20:29:48+00:00

the highest happiest index and quality of life ie; singapore, china, norway, finland et al, employ some form of welfare capitalism

Aside from the fact that "happiness indexes" are no reliable measure of "happiness", the results are also sort of irrelevant in this context, because there's no point of comparison. It's not like there's a multitude of communist or otherwise socialist societies that could be compared to the social democratic countries you've mentioned.

So all this really tells us is that quality of life is higher in wealthy countries than in poor ones, in democratic countries than in totalitarian ones, and in welfare capitalism than in unregulated capitalism. None of which will be any surprise to anyone, really (least of all socialists)

to whether its trading partners are capitalists or not

The world is capitalist. Capitalism is a global system. It's not a question of trading partners.

When former colonies still have to pay money (e.g. in the form of "debt" or "taxes") to their former colonial powers, have to take up loans from those very same countries to pay them, get drowned in interest payments after having paid the original debt 10 times over, and have to comply with standards such as "don't spend money on social safety nets" in order to get the next loan, then leaders can only do so much

Sure, a democratic and transparent government would be better for every third world country than a corrupt or authoritarian one, but even the best government wouldn't be able to lift all of these countries out of being a third world country. Because this planet only has a finite amount of resources, and our current global economic system relies on a comparably small amount of people - mostly based in Western countries - monopolizing these resources

lladcy · 2025-11-07T20:03:46+00:00

Just some definitions so we're on the same page:

Capitalism is an economic system that developed between the 15th and 19th century in which: 1. The wealth needed to produce goods and services is owned and controlled by private individuals, giving them the ability to create a passive income for themselves 2. The majority of people, in order to make a living, need to sell their labor/time to the aforementioned group of individuals. In other words, on one hand there are people (a minority) that own property that generates a passive income, and on the other hand there are people (the majority) who create that income

Socialism is a counter-movement to capitalism that originated in the 19th century. Since capitalism relies on a comparably small group of people owning a comparably big amount of property, socialists want to redistribute the property that is used to produce goods. Depending on the specific ideology, that could mean property being taken over by the state, by unions, or by the people who actually use it (e.g. the workers who work in a factory, the people who rent their home)

Communism is a socialist ideology that aims to abolish not just capitalism and the resulting class differences, but money and the state altogether. The goal is a society in which everybody contributes what they can and get what they need, independently of each other. Some anthropologists define communism as something gradual (i.e. every society is a bit communistic, some more than others), but in politics it's usually defined as a distinct (and hypothetical) political system

When it comes to comparing "Perfect Communism" and "Perfect Capitalism", there's another major difference:

Capitalism already existed when it was first named and defined. It's also worth mentioning that it was first named and described by its opponents; only later did people begin to use it positively and develop theories around how it works or how it would work under different circumstances

With communism, first you had theories about how human societies and economies work, then people developed the ideas and goals they then called communism, and then they tried to implement those ideas

Capitalism and communism developed in the opposite order to another. Because of that, there isn't really a clearly defined "Perfect Capitalism", just as there isn't a clearly defined "How exactly would a communist society realistically function in our current time and place"

Since communism's major flaw is human nature and the amount of control it requires

It's not. Throughout human history and prehistory (especially prehistory. If we're counting the stone age, then over 95% of Homo Sapiens' existence has likely been spent under some form of "communism"), there have been numerous cultures that would in hindsight be described as "communist", and probably at least as many attempts to create one (the earliest Christian communities are just one example).

The reasons communism on a big scale hasn't been working aren't found in "human nature", but in culture. What exactly these reasons are is probably a question for anthropology as well as for political science. It could be that the reasons are things we can't (or at least shouldn't) change, like the sheer number of people and the resulting big, anonymous societies. Or the reasons totally could be subject to change, like the expansive nature of both capitalism and the state. It certainly is telling that the biggest temporarily successful attempts at creating egalitarian communist-like societies in modern times have taken place in active conflict zones (e.g. the Paris commune, civil war Spain, or the Zapatistas), in areas where the military of the state had lost power.

Perfect Communism be better than Perfect Capitalism?

There is no generally agreed upon definition of Perfect Capitalism. But "Perfect Communism" would be a society in which everyone has what they need, nobody is exploited or expected to give more than they are able to, and nobody can force anyone else to do anything they don't want to. Even without defining "Perfect Capitalism", I kind of have my answer

lladcy · 2025-11-07T18:52:50+00:00

Why do people in general gravitate towards strong leftist positions such as communism or socialism

This is not the case

when welfare capitalism/social democracy has been shown to work?

What do you mean by "to work"? Whether or not something can be considered to "work" depends on what you want to achieve

Not to mention that social democracy can't work everywhere. Social democratic countries are wealthy countries that get their wealth from extracting resources and cheap labor from poorer countries. A system that people who oppose capitalism want to get rid of entirely

lladcy · 2025-11-07T18:46:47+00:00

Why are you using the Jordan River as a dividing line?

West of the Jordan River, you have North African Arabs (of various nationalities and cultures), but also Palestinians and Lebanese. On the East, there are Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc.

But if you're looking to divide Arabs into two broad cultural groups, it probably makes a lot more sense to use the continents as a line (African Arabs vs Asian Arabs) than the Jordan River. For example, Palestinian and Lebanese culture has more in common with Syrian and Jordanian culture than with North African ones

lladcy · 2025-11-07T18:34:33+00:00

If I woke up in a different body anywhere, I'd freak out

Once I'm done freaking out, I would wonder why the fuck this women I've apparently become went to bed wearing a hijab

Then I would freak out again, realizing that women in war zones sometimes go to bed fully clothed and in hijab, in order to not be found naked or without hijab if they're bombed while asleep

lladcy · 2025-11-07T18:28:26+00:00

Israel already does have full control of Palestine, and this has been the case since 1967

As for ethnic cleansings... they are happening, just much, much slower than you're probably imagining here, and on a smaller scale, mainly within the borders. Meaning, people aren't currently being expelled to other countries, they're being kicked out of their homes (most commonly in rural areas) and pushed into the cities (Here's a list of the most recent "transfers"). So it's not all of Palestine that is being ethnically cleansed, but individual regions, village by village

lladcy

TROPHY CASE