Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[kissingerandpals]

Transhumanism just sounds really gay but also inevitable so I guess we’re all going to be gay cyborgs one day

[mitigatedchaos]

I believe it will involve a lot of literal, rather than metaphorical, homosexuality.

The first generation to gain the ability to change to a new sex easily and cheaply and completely passing (on a physical level) will also start experimenting with new sex configurations, probably.  For the generation after that, it will be normalized, and manipulation of hormones at key points in development may used to guide sexual orientation towards bisexual or pansexual.

So yeah, gay cyborgs.  

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[ryangoslingofficial]

a multiplayer only game where you go on stage and try and win an audience of other people listening to your bad jokes

[durbikins]

Tumblr finally gets a PVP update

[ranma-official]

Tumblr is already a pvp-only game and we’ve been begging for single player mode for decades

[mitigatedchaos]

But what about all the pornbots? And the storefront bots? Clearly there is some PvE action going on. (Though admittedly the mysterious carbots that follow players around without doing anything are more of a passive mob.)

Unless you’re going to suggest that BotMeister is a real class. I certainly didn’t see it at chargen. Then again maybe you dug around in the menus a bit more since I can tell your build is a Discourse Warrior/Weeb dual class.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

tsumbubura asked:

"Having a trans character in D&D makes no sense" So having elves, orcs and the ability to summon fire makes sense but trans characters don't?

ranma-official answered:

If biological sex can be changed any amount of times at any point, there’s no reason “being transgender” could ever be a sensible category of people.

Also, “there are dragons and that means anything goes” just means you don’t understand verisimilitude.

[mitigatedchaos]

Two reasons - if it’s expensive to get the magic, or if it’s a curse that’s tough to remove. I can’t remember what the math worked out to for a commoner.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[discoursedrome]

In lieu of discourse, someone ought to make a hotornot clone where it just shows you a random statue somewhere in the US and you vote whether you think it should be destroyed or not.

[mitigatedchaos]

Expert level: artificial neural network turns pictures of random people on the Internet into statues and imbues them with artificially-generated histories and ideologies.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

But everybody knows that the REAL reward for finishing a side quest is to have it off the quest list and its markers removed from the map.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Getting closer to some kind of breaking point

[isaacsapphire]

Pretty sure that I became a liberal for the Beer and Tits more than for the “Liberalism” per see (whatever that actually is) considering that I always opposed Second Wave’s anti porn side.

The proto-rape appoligism from trans activists and “anti-racist” activists is getting extremely old. The anti free speech position, the pro violence position, the pro imprisonment and forced reeducation of people who have moral disagreement with the SJW party line, even when those who disagree are LGBTQ, or non White, or women themselves is getting to be more than I can take.

It is literally, ontologically, impossible to please them with anything less than ceasing to exist if one is straight, cis, and/or White, and even if you are LGBTQ or a PoC, that’s only good enough if you toe the party line completely, erase all evidence that you ever haven’t, keep up to date on the latest terminology and erase all evidence that you ever used old terms in the past, and never piss off someone who is more “disadvantaged” than you or has more social clout.

I can’t keep doing this.

I think that people should be treated based on their actions and the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I think that people should be permitted to love as they will, to form consensual relationship with adults as they will, and that minors should receive accurate information about sex and human reproduction and access to birth control if they so desire and not legally punished for consensual relationships with others of their age.

I think that gender and gender roles have changed, gender reassignment technology has advanced astronomically in the last half century, and our culture is struggling to absorb these changes. I don’t have all the answers for how to best accommodate all the permutations and changes. I do know that, at minimum, people should be permitted to do what they like with their own bodies and make whatever modifications they feel inclined to make, and as long as nobody is misrepresenting the body modifications that they’re selling, it’s not really any business of strangers what body mods other people choose to have.

I’m not sure exactly how all this should best be accommodated or not by schools, medical insurance, or employers though, or to what, if any, degree the government should enforce particular accommodations or forbid them.

I think that people ought to call people what they want to be called, but I also think that occasional accidental misgendering is a regular part of life and not necessarily intentional or meant to be harmful.

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with interracial relationships. (And JFC, WTF is wrong with the world that I’m saying that in 2017 to differentiate myself from LIBERALS?)

I don’t think that anybody is morally obligated to try to change who they are sexually attracted to, although you might be morally obligated to not act on some attractions (eg. Minor attracted people). I’m also pretty sure that attempts to change what you are sexually attracted to don’t work.

I don’t think that anybody has a right to sex with anybody else, whether in general or specific. Marital rape is rape, and you don’t have a right to have sex with x category of people either.

I don’t think that speech that isn’t outright direct “you kill that guy” type incitement has any business being called violence, and DEFINITELY should not be met with violence, but rather more speech.

I think that silencing those you strongly disagree with is a bad strategic move, not merely morally doubtful. If you are so right and they are so wrong, there is nothing to be gained by not publicly debating them.

I believe in freedom of religion, and freedom to not be religious, and freedom to say that other people’s religions are stupid and bad.

And I have to go get lunch now, so that’s where I’ll end for now.

[random-thought-depository]

I think most actual liberals are probably closer to you than the people you’re complaining about. I don’t know what your life is like so maybe I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like you’re reacting to social bubble and “the most obnoxious yeller gets heard” effects that create a very distorted picture of what the liberal Overton Window actually looks like.

Knock on the door of your average Democrat voter and my bet is you’ll find a person who has never heard of the Cotton Ceiling, has a basically liberal perspective on anti-racism and feminism and LGBT rights, thinks Hillary Clinton is kind of cool, thinks the rich have too much but doesn’t like communists and doesn’t want revolution, etc.. Heck, go to your average Tumblr leftist and my guess is you’ll find somebody with roughly the opinions you just posted. Opinions like “interracial marriage is actually problematic” get reblogged disproportionately because they’re unusual and therefore interesting.

I mean, Hillary Clinton won the 2016 primary and Bernie Sanders was the maverick outsider who fired the imaginations of the young and radical. Do either of them look like the kind of candidate a hard-core “SJW” type would get excited about to you?

I think this is why hard-core “SJW” types are so frustrated and angry: they know that most people are extremely problematic and unenlightened by their standards and this includes most of their ostensible allies.

[mitigatedchaos]

This use of the word “Liberal” probably has something to do with the American usage not differentiating “Liberal” and “Leftist.”

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

I mean, it’s honestly kind of ridiculous to suggest that the proper answer to “too many Chinese buyers are holding empty apartments in our country as a store of value” is “remove the state’s monopoly on the enforcement of property laws” instead of the far less difficult and less likely to break every thing “change the laws so that so many housing units can be built that holding these empty apartment buildings is no longer economically sensible.”

The number of empty housing units acting as a real asset store of value for Chinese money fleeing capital restrictions is also probably quite small relative to the market size, much like those expensive apartments in London that people were complaining should be socialized, even though in practice it wouldn’t make much difference in the price.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

theage.com.au

Up to half of Chinese buyers leave apartments vacant

A quarter of Chinese buying property overseas leave their apartments vacant and the majority pay for their purchase with cash, a survey of mainland Chinese customers by investment bank UBS shows.

Simon Johanson

[argumate]

the issue with loosening zoning regulations to encourage property development is that many people treat property as a safe haven asset and don’t care about actually living in it or even renting it out.

[poipoipoi-2016]

Build fast enough that they can’t make 5% real returns by leaving it empty though, and see what happens.

[jaehaerys1]

Without monopolized property rights enforcement by city planners preventing the full utilization of public land to organize communities in ways that are actually organic, emergent, and practical; these issues considered to be flaws of capitalism would be largely irrelevant.

Property rights are a social institution. They exist because a group of people/community mutually recognize and enforce it for each other’s benefit. If you have the building of some absentee speculator just sitting there for years unused while people struggle under a highly regulated housing market, that’s immoral. Many libertarians may turn a blind eye to that, but it should be criticized and opposed. And it certainly shouldn’t be considered the result of a free market.

Neighbors in historically decentralized communities have always taken common sense measures to ensure that mindless speculation and hoarding of land wouldn’t waste their local resources and artificially drive up rent and home ownership.

This exists because of monopolized property rights enforcement which, no surprise, exists largely to benefit crony big business at the expense of everyone else.

[gcu-sovereign]

/in my estimation, this is the furthest left I’ve seen jaehaerys1 go on a libertarian topic/

Although I have to wonder to what extent local and decentralized measures are necessary. 

Japan has famously good land use policy, and to my knowledge, no problem with speculators acting as absentee landlords.  But Japan even more famously has a falling population.

So I have to wonder at what point these local measures to increase land utilization would have to kick in even if you started reducing land use restrictions.

@voxette-vk

[argumate]

Part of the problem in this specific case is caused by economic extortion of the Chinese people by the state, and their attempts to evade this.

As long as something fucked up is happening in one part of the world, other parts of the world are going to end up compensating for it in one way or another.

[shieldfoss]

Abandoned homes are only a good investment if there’s a cheap way to prevent squatters from moving in and taking over, otherwise you lose all your money paying your guards.

In this specific instance, that would be “the police will do it for me for free.”

In the grand tradition of crony capitalism, they are wasting a public resource (police time) propping up their private capital.

[argumate]

These are mostly apartments, so it only takes a small number of people occupying the building and the possible presence of a caretaker to make squatters exceedingly unlikely.

[shieldfoss]

What’s the caretaker going to do if he finds squatters?

Because I believe he’ll first threaten to call, and then escalate to calling, the police.

[oktavia-von-gwwcendorff]

Actually if we take David Friedman’s rule on criminals having to compensate proportionally to the harm they cause (such as in the example of breaking and entering a cabin in the woods to recharge your cell phone to call 911), it would force equilibrium prices really damn quickly.

Someone squatting in someone else’s apartment is undoubtedly a violation of property rights, but the actual compensation for squatting an empty building might be really (surprisingly, so some) low.

If the squatters evacuate promptly once a paying tenant is found it’s definitely not the price of rent, because the building was not generating any revenue and thus the opportunity cost was zero. If they don’t cause any damage to the apartment the depreciation costs are negligible. It seems like it would mostly come down to utility bills, changing the locks twice (once to replace the original picked lock with one controlled by the tenants, once to replace that one with the landlord’s lock others don’t have keys to), rent for however long it takes for the squatters to move out once they’re informed that someone is actually going to live there (which could be just a few days), and whatever wear and tear has occurred.

Thus, if this were ancapistan, well-behaved squatters would be able to obtain housing for really cheap. This would quickly incentivize marginal apartment owners to find someone who pays actual rent, pushing prices down towards 100-friction% occupancy.

[neoliberalism-nightly]

I think you guys are overestimating how much the market is actually in equilibrium, the difference of the average cost of providing security in today’s society to occupied and unoccupied apartment buildings, and the marginal cost of finding a clean squatter and ensuring that they are actually like that vs Airbnb which you know are kind of banned everywhere in the developing world.

[mitigatedchaos]

Yeah, I agree with NN here.

Like, if you get a bad squatter that messes everything up, just how are you going to extract the value from them to fix things?  If they had all sorts of money laying around they would not be squatters.  If they could easily generate that money when ordered to do so they would probably not be squatters.  If you have to throw them into a work camp to get that money, that’s really sketchy tbh and smells of slavery, and also it would probably depend on state subsidy.

“If only we didn’t have a monopoly on the enforcement of property rights” is a blatant overreaction to a situation that would be easily sorted out by just changing the zoning rules, and in London at least, Chinese value-holding housing stock is only a miniscule fraction of total housing stock.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

• Tsundere despotic technocrat: B..b..baka, it's not like I actually care about my fellow citizens. I just want them to be healthy and productive members of society so I can maximize the expected risk-adjusted total real government spending over the next 50 years, including any spillover effects.