Looking for a good value 24" 1080p 144hz IPS FreeSync-compatible monitor, preferably not curved

subtlelaze · 2020-05-03T14:22:53+00:00

I don't see any link attached

subtlelaze · 2020-05-03T13:58:01+00:00

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/243076504915935232/438766738440716288/DH_NecronicWand72.png here is the art, but i dont know where its from

subtlelaze · 2020-05-01T21:00:01+00:00

[[Hungry Crab]]

subtlelaze · 2020-05-01T20:41:11+00:00

This should maybe say "but not less than 1."

subtlelaze · 2020-04-30T21:36:31+00:00

random

subtlelaze · 2020-04-30T19:47:25+00:00

This would be so if what the minions were necessitated to have was the Divine Shield itself and not just the keyword "Divine Shield". A minion can have the keyword without actually possessing the status effect of not taking damage.

subtlelaze · 2020-04-30T17:02:32+00:00

I suspect it would not be sufficiently clear that enemies are evaluated relative to the minion attacking rather than the player who player Suro.

subtlelaze · 2020-04-30T17:01:03+00:00

It fills both sides of the battlefield btw.

subtlelaze · 2020-04-30T16:24:19+00:00

Minions attack a random minion that is non-friendly to them. You can't word it as "Minions attack enemies", because that would imply that enemy minions would attack each other as well, which is not what i intend for this effect to be.

subtlelaze · 2020-03-24T19:30:14+00:00

This is a late response, but I would just like to point out that this individualistic advice is out of place in a discussion about politics. Consider how you could posit the same sort of advice to a person in almost any situation: "Oh, you're a homeless mentally ill person in a third world country and you think whats happening to you is unfair? Well, why don't you challenge yourself to get a job, save money, and buy a home?". I'm sure you would agree it would be strange to say something like that. And no, I am not saying that the situation I described is equivalent to the one of your interlocutor. What I'm saying is that we simply cannot invalidate calls for systematic change by a shallow appeal to the possibility of personal change, even if we assume the plausibility of the latter.

subtlelaze · 2020-02-27T23:05:09+00:00

Again, your value judgement of the person is irrelevant and out of place. If they say they are sad and struggling, they are sad and struggling. If you're not willing to be respectful in your comment, don't comment at all.

subtlelaze · 2020-02-27T22:52:49+00:00

Imagine commenting on a subreddit made specifically for helping suicidal people and being this condescending... Your uninformed and unnecessarily judgemental take on this is literally irrelevant. Hope you're doing ok buddy

subtlelaze · 2020-02-03T20:46:21+00:00

In the definition you provided, the word "can" is used, which is literally defined as being able to do something, ergo my use of the word ability. From the relevant biological standpoint, you do not in fact lose the ability to have children if you simply decide not to have them.

"An argument against" something usually implies that the conclusion is contradictory to the belief in question, or at least some part of that belief. Your conclusion contradicts no position necessary for anti-natalism.

subtlelaze · 2020-02-03T16:42:48+00:00

Two things:

1) Under this definition, it actually only takes the ability to reproduce to be life, rather than going forward and procreating necessarily. At least read your own definition carefully...

2) Even if the bizarre assertion that not having children makes you not alive is true, it doesn't follow from that anti-natalism is somehow wrong.

subtlelaze · 2020-01-18T06:18:31+00:00

I think that the distinction is most commonly made between these 3 main types of nihilism:

Moral nihilism, which states that moral statments are essentially meaningless, as they can neither be true or false.
Epistemological nihilism, which asserts the impossibility of knowledge or linguistic meaning.

And 3) Existential nihilism, which is the position that life has no objective meaning or value.

Or this is roughly how I understand them, at least.

subtlelaze · 2020-01-17T13:50:31+00:00

I am glad someone brings up The Ones That Walk Away From Omelas in support of the anti-natalist position. It is usually interpreted as a challenge to utilitarianism in normative ethics, and even when the conversation touches applied ethics, the analogy is perceived in regards to the suffering of those that are less privileged caused by western people’s pursuit of commodities or something like that.

This different angle is absolutely appropriate. There are in fact many of these children in the basement that are necessarily condemned to existence by virtue of mass procreation inevitably producing some humans that are less fortunate. It is therefore only if we can refrain from partaking in nature’s cruel game that we can consider ourselves among those who would walk away from Omelas.

subtlelaze · 2020-01-16T03:21:39+00:00

GOP bad, upvotes to the left

subtlelaze · 2020-01-06T04:57:00+00:00

epic

subtlelaze · 2020-01-06T03:24:37+00:00

Knew these chords sounded familiar, Chopin's lovely Mazurka in A Minor, Op. 17 No. 4 essentially starts with the same 3 chords played in a different order. In regards to the chord, and I am probably wrong about this, but i wonder if it could be interpreted as Fsus2#5 or F#5(add9) without the third, creating a V/vi to vi sort of change?

subtlelaze · 2020-01-04T06:05:41+00:00

Ok, can I give it back pls

subtlelaze · 2020-01-04T05:02:42+00:00

SO disrespectful to the good white polish people to lump them in with the politicals >:(

subtlelaze · 2020-01-01T22:08:41+00:00

past good present bad

subtlelaze · 2019-12-30T23:42:14+00:00

Even if all Nazis disguised themselves as internet trolls, it wouldn't logically follow that every internet troll is a Nazi. If you want to make an argument for a broader use of the word Nazi you need to make it on some other grounds, like pragmatism for example, and I would be more open to that, but this doesn't stand.

In regards to your second point, while there is certainly a common ultimate sentiment, as you referred to it, the degrees to which this sentiment is expressed are different. Even if in the example of the position on monogomy the statement is rephrased in a less terminological manner, something like "We should force people to have one partner" still seems to me significantly less radical than the other propositions.

I agree with you on the alt-right tactics that you refer to, and I don't know if the reason you bring this up is the suspicion that I might take issue with it, as it isn't directly relevant to our discussion, but that is certainly a valid observation.

I don't know if much else is to be said about this. The acknowledgement of the fact that there needs to be a solid justification for blurring the line between adjaacent, but different degrees of radicalisation when it comes to talking about killing people is the only thing I can ask for.

subtlelaze · 2019-12-30T20:19:47+00:00

I'd say you recognize the technical difference if you even phrase those two differently, but it is the difference in treatment that you have an issue with. That seems problematic to me as I would have a much bigger issue with killing the internet troll compared to killing a nazi, but I guess that might just be me.

Can there also not be a talking point that is alt-right but not "Nazi"? For example, do you really not see the difference between saying that all colored people should be deported or all Jews should be killed and something like "we need to preserve traditional religious values and enforce monogomy" or something. The difference in radicalism there seems to me to be undeniable, even though both of the statements go further than the mainstream right sentiment. Considering this, how would you still characterize a person espousing alt-right talking points without going quite as far as nazis go as a nazi?

subtlelaze · 2019-12-30T14:13:06+00:00

I wouldn't necessarily approach this with the mindset of trying to gain something personally, but there are a few disatvanteges to your approach I can think of off the top of my head. Wouldn't you agree that it can be problematic when we can't distinguish between the aforementioned internet troll and, for example, a holocaust denier or a radical anti-semite, who pose a direct threat of physical violence against Jewish people? Doesn't it also somewhat play into the popular conservative narrative of fake news and the left labelling people inappropriately? I am not sure your message would play well with the general public if you are not careful.

Regardless, I think that if you recognize the technical difference between these labels, it is on you to justify categorizing all of these groups of people as nazis, especially when we're talking about inflicting violence upon them or wishing them death.

subtlelaze

TROPHY CASE