1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
nuclearspaceheater
fluffshy

It seems that people assume that if only we got rid of conventional beauty standards that everyone’s internal beauty standards would default to some standard that placed themselves at the top. I haven’t seen anyone ever argue for that position explicitly though. I could just be misunderstanding the logic behind other peoples hatred of conventional beauty standards. (I also might be biased because my internal beauty standards don’t seem to be influenced by external culture in a straight forward fashion.)

argumate

even if we got rid of conventional beauty standards I suspect that many people would still inexorably end up fixating on a particular aesthetic that isn’t physically possible for them, so transhuman body mods all the way baby

discoursedrome

sometimes I fantasize about how nice it’d be to just automatically look really great all the time, like perfect skin, effortlessly excellent posture, everything in place all the time, don’t have to mess with your clothes, and so on, because I covet that look but just do not have the discipline to put the effort into that. BUT

inevitably this leads me to reflecting on how, if everyone was like that, we wouldn’t have a world where everyone is effortlessly beautiful, we’d have a world where people put the same amount of time and expense into their appearance that they do now, and expectations are just as uneven, only the bar is higher, so it’s like you’re totally sloppy if you leave the house without painting a unique abstract art composition over your entire body and crossbraiding your hair with live flowers

like most superpower fantasies, it only works if everyone else is denied it.

nuclearspaceheater

That’s only true if the thing in question is 100% positional. If it has both a positional and absolute component, then increasing it across the board is still a benefit. And besides that, it seems to me that ugliness is a distinct thing from beauty. The mere absence of beauty is just plainness, and raising everyone to at least that level would still be an improvement.

mitigatedchaos

Endorsed.

Additionally, is not a world where beauty is determined by how fashionable you are, and not how you were born, an improvement?

Source: fluffshy
argumate
emojicode.org

Emojicode 0.3 Documentation
argumate

Compile and Run Your First Program
This guide is a short introduction to Emojicode and assumes you have a basic knowledge of object-orientated programming and familiarity with the command- line.

The basic structure
All Emojicode source files are named like file.emojic. So let’s get started by creating a file called greeter.emojic and put some content into it:

🏁 🍇

🍉
This is the minimum structure every program must have. 🏁 is a special part of the language after which comes a code block. Every code block begins with 🍇 and ends with 🍉.

When the program is run the code block after 🏁 is executed.

Greetings
As you can see our program does not do anything at the moment, so let’s add a greeting.

🏁 🍇
😀 🔤Howdy, partner!🔤
🍉
Before analyzing this new code we’ll give it a try.

Hint
You must have installed Emojicode to run the following commands. See Installing Emojicode if you haven’t already.
Open a command-line and navigate to the directory containing greeter.emojic. Then run this command.

emojicodec greeter.emojic
This asks the compiler to compile greeter.emojic. If everything goes well it should exit without a message and generate a file called greeter.emojib. This is an Emojicode Byte-Code File, which can be executed by the Emojicode Real-Time Engine. So let’s type:

emojicode greeter.emojib
Congratulations! You’ve written your first program. But how does it actually work?

It’s simple: 🔤Howdy, partner!🔤 is a string literal. Every character between two 🔤 is then part of the string.

Then we call the 😀 method on this string. And guess what, it just prints the string to the standard output. The thing to notice here is, that the method is actually called by putting its emoji before the object. It’s also noteworthy that Emojicode usually does not use parentheses around arguments to method calls.

Warming Up
Let’s call a few more methods to warm up. We’ll now write a method to convert English into Pig Latin. This is a very easy language because to get the Pig Latin word you just have to move the first letter of the English word to the end and add ay.

In Emojicode you can easily extend every existing class, so to follow good object-orientated practices we’ll extend the string class to have a method to convert an English word to Pig Latin. Add the following into the file:

🐋 🔡 🍇
🐖 🐷 ➡️ 🔡🍇

🍉
🍉
🐋 🔡 🍇 says: Extend the class 🔡 (That’s the string class). 🐖 🐷 ➡️ 🔡 declares a method called 🐷 and returning an instance of the 🔡 class.

Ok, let’s take the first letter of this string by using the 🔪 method, which is, according to the documentation, capable of giving us just part of a string. It’s signature is:

🐖 🔪 from 🚂 length 🚂 ➡️ 🔡
This tells us that the 🔪 method takes two arguments named from and length, both of them must be of the type 🚂. 🚂 stands for an integer, and that the method returns an instance of 🔡.

Let’s call it on the string we are currently working on.

🐖 🐷 ➡️ 🔡 🍇
🔪 🐕 0 1
🍉
This should get us a string containing the first character of the string we are currently working on which is represented by 🐕. You can compare 🐕 to this or self in other languages. However, we need to store the result somewhere.

🐖 🐷 ➡️ 🔡 🍇
🍦 firstLetter 🔪 🐕 0 1
🍉
The above code stores the result into the variable firstLetter. The variable is actually declared and initialized here. It’s important to notice that 🍦 was used here to declare the variable which prevents the variable from being changed later. This kind of variable is called “frozen variable”.

You may have also noticed that we didn’t declare a type for the variable. Emojicode supports type inference that is the compiler infers the variable’s type by looking at the type of the value for the variable.

Now we need to get the rest of the word.

🐖 🐷 ➡️ 🔡 🍇
🍦 firstLetter 🔪 🐕 0 1
🍦 rest 🔪 🐕 1 🐔 🐕
🍉
The 🐔 method returns the length of a string, so we get the whole string. You can see that the result of the 🐔 method is used as argument to 🔪.

Finally we just need to concatenate firstLetter, rest and ay and return it from the method.

🐖 🐷 ➡️ 🔡 🍇
🍦 firstLetter 🔪 🐕 0 1
🍦 rest 🔪 🐕 1 🐔 🐕
🍎 🍪 rest firstLetter 🔤ay🔤 🍪
🍉
The 🍪s are the most efficient way of concatenating strings. You can wrap any amount of strings between 🍪 and you will get them concatenated into one string. You should already know the 🍎 from above. It returns a value from the method.

Well done! Let’s update the 🏁 method to give us a few examples. The file should now look like this:

🐋 🔡 🍇
🐖 🐷 ➡️ 🔡 🍇
🍦 firstLetter 🔪 🐕 0 1
🍦 rest 🔪 🐕 1 🐔 🐕
🍎 🍪 rest firstLetter 🔤ay🔤 🍪
🍉
🍉

🏁 🍇
😀 🐷 🔤cat🔤
😀 🐷 🔤development🔤
😀 🐷 🔤computer🔤
🍉
Compile and let’s see:

emojicodec greeter.emojic
emojicode greeter.emojib
atcay
evelopmentday
omputercay
Cool! We have successfully translated English words into Pig Latin.

submitted by @wirehead-wannabe 

mitigatedchaos

No.

argumate
ranma-official

I’m a male feminist, I own a “male tears” mug just to cry into it

mitigatedchaos

Well duh, they’re a crafting component.  It would be stupid to waste them.

argumate

buying a dozen “this is what a feminist looks like” t-shirts and forcibly putting them on men you pass on the street

mitigatedchaos

feminist alchemists ending every youtube video with “don’t forget to like and subscribe” because every like can be used in a Potion of Intersectionality +2

Source: ranma-official gender politics shtpost
funereal-disease
funereal-disease

I periodically think about that autistic man whose coworkers cut the heads off his stuffed animals, and about how they probably don’t understand even half the import of what they did. It’s not just destroying a favorite toy - the bond between an autist and their stuffed animals is something else entirely.

If somebody hurt my caterpillars, I don’t even think I’d be able to speak. Just shriek with rage.

mitigatedchaos

It strikes me, in relation to your previous post about how you were one biological accident away from being a neckbeard, that being so attached to stuffed animals would be extremely low status in a man.

gender politics
argumate
argumate

This got long and I didn’t want to just drop it into your askbox as an unformatted multipart wall-o-text.

…I also have concerns about relying heavily on land tax, depending on implementation.  If it’s based on current value, then: 

You’ll have poorer people being priced out of their homes and being forced to move if where they’re living ever becomes more valuable.  That’s pretty shitty, even if the land could be put to more “efficient” use.  Yeah, it already happens–I think that’s the real issue with gentrification, more than the “character of the neighborhood” changing–but that doesn’t mean we should put more pressure in that direction. 

1. Forcing people to move is a pretty heavy cost that’s worth at least trying to avoid imposing.  Having to move can mean having to find a new job, losing any location-based community, your kids having to change schools and leave behind their friends, plus the expense and hassle of the move itself.  In the worst cases it might mean being homeless.  It upends your whole life.  Even if a move is voluntary it upends your whole life.

2. It means telling people, “You don’t deserve to live somewhere nice.  If where you already are becomes nicer, you’ll be kicked out”.  That’s a hell of a message.

3. Knowing that you’ll have to go through all that if wherever you’re living ever becomes more desirable seems liable to create perverse incentives.

I’ve seen you express some disdain for the idea that, and I’m not quoting here, just paraphrasing based on memory, that people have a right to stay in the same place forever with nothing changing.  But I don’t think people are unreasonable to want to be able to carve out some degree of security and to not have yet another factor outside their control that can potentially fuck up their entire life.

Additional items:

You’re taxing based on value that’s purely theoretical until someone tries to sell.  In a way this is true for any property tax, but I think it’s more true for land; it’s hard to directly compare different parcels of land because the location itself is what you’re selling, more than the actual square footage.  And it can change without the current owner necessarily benefiting from the “increased” value.

Also, if revenue from land tax is specifically funding services in the area, you get a situation where anywhere cheap to live has underfunded services.  In the US, a large chunk of funding for public schools is from local property tax, and it works very poorly.

Anyway.  My thoughts on land tax.  I think you could avoid some of this–for example, by the tax being a fixed amount based on the last sale price (i.e. if you buy it for $x, then the annual tax is fixed at $y, a percentage of $x, until you sell it–at which point $y is readjusted to reflect the amount you sold it for).  But that wouldn’t necessarily be in line with what it seems like you want land tax to do and represent.

mitigatedchaos

It strikes me that part of what you’re after, dear owl-friend, is the moral basis for this taxation.

Either that, or simplifying the taxes.

I don’t think either is really optimal.  People will create “moral” arguments against any kind of taxation that is devised, and most likely the burden of taxation should be somewhat diverse in its sources partly to make evasion harder and partly to cause less distortion.  It could be simpler and altered in many ways, but having only one tax is probably a bad plan in some way.

And as for the moral basis, we both know that property and law are just force one step removed.  Those claiming a higher moral standing on “taxes are theft” are just fooling themselves.  (And in part, this can be chased down to a disconnect on the justification for where to root causality, where consciousness is being used to mark personhood to even attempt such philosophies in the first place, but not as the final causal root, which is incoherent.)

the iron hand the invisible fist
Top Photos