Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

🔥tabletop gaming

cptsdcarlosdevil answered:

I always get confused and lose track of the plot because I can’t take in information through my ears very well

[invertedporcupine]

This response was super confusing until I realized that some people mean RPGs when they say “tabletop gaming.”

[isaacsapphire]

I’ve done tabletop RPGs through written internet chat in the past. OP might find that easier to follow, if they are interested.

[mitigatedchaos]

I actually prefer doing them through written internet chat, personally, but IRL lets you do a bit of social activity for bonding with more local people.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

Sometimes, 14-15 year olds have to take on adult responsibilities for their families. A hardship license would allow them to drive and take on a job.

thesymbolofpeace answered:

They shouldn’t have to work how is that not against child labor laws that’s a kid

[guidancerune]

problem: families dealing with poverty when their parents cant sustain the family on their own

stupid idiot solution: aid programs, base income, fair housing

smart brain genius solution: Child Labour 2: Electric Boogaloo

[brazenautomaton]

galaxy buddha brain solution: “they shouldn’t have to do this thing in order to solve their problem, so I will wisely prevent them from solving their problem at all, because the moment the problem leaves my vision cone I will forget about it entirely except for the vague sense I am a Good Person who does Good Things”

this is how you get california housing laws

[mitigatedchaos]

This is the real risk of the opposite approach.  The family ends up at the whims of the state bureaucracy, which may be dysfunctional or even deliberately rendered dysfunctional by politicals.

So unless your ideology specifically includes, in its doctrines, that you must be constantly checking on the effectiveness of the state bureaucracy, not to cut it, but to make sure what you’re doing actually works and isn’t just something you thought might work, you have to be careful.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

Asserting that the government of the Articles of Confederation springs from the revolution while the Constitutional government does not is sophistry, because the same body of politicians were involved in both documents. As a single example, Washington was a delegate to the 2nd Continental Congress, led the army under the government of the Articles, was president of the Constitutional convention, and 1st US president under the Constitution.

mutant-aesthetic answered:

Agreed

[mitigatedchaos]

A higher understanding than simply traitor/not-traitor is required.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[collapsedsquid]

I do worry that the folks who believe the google guy had a real concern about the business consequences of google’s affirmative action policy are going to  go broke someday trying to buy the Brooklyn bridge

[collapsedsquid]

mitigatedchaos:  Eh, I do suspect it’s a drag on the company, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near enough to kill it.

What I want to know is, what is the business case for google donating 4 million to refugee-related organizations?  This clearly has no benefit for google and I am very concerned that they would waste their money like this.

[mitigatedchaos]

Right, right, PR blah blah.  Manifestbro was also writing for an intended audience, blah blah.

But of course, the people saying it has business consequences aren’t actually that naive.

If you work for Google, it’s relevant.  And if you have shares in Google, it’s relevant.  

The consequences, though, aren’t limited to just Google.  If Manifestbro is correct, it’s potentially a drag on the whole sector, depending on just what it is you want out of that sector.  

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

What you call "time travel ethics" is more like "acausal ethics", people intuitively grasp the acausal negotiations that underlie our ethical systems.

In this case, I disagree.  This represents a potential recommitment to bad policy on the grounds that you or your ancestors (who are not you) did it before.  I’d say it’s more similar to a sunk cost fallacy than an acausal negotiation.

That’s why I gave an example of a 16 year old girl having a kid.  This is, clearly and obviously, a bad policy.  

And if you’re reading this, you probably either agree abortion should be legal (in which case you disagree with the logic of the argument), xor you probably agree that mass migration isn’t such a great idea (in which case you disagree with the logic of the argument).  

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

It’s not Time Travel Ethics

Suppose there is a girl who was born when her mother was sixteen.  And her mother was born when her grandmother was sixteen.  And suppose this burden of caring for a child at the age of 16 has contributed to an intergenerational cycle of poverty that has harmed her family and her education.

A boy of sixteen comes to her and says (roughly translated),

“Hey girl, your mother recklessly had a kid at age 16, and her mom recklessly had a kid at age 16, so you should get with me and recklessly have a kid at age 16!  After all, if they didn’t do the same thing, you wouldn’t exist!”

Is this a good idea?  I mean, after all, if they didn’t do it, she wouldn’t exist.

No, it is not a good idea.  In fact, this argument does not make sense…

unless, implicit in the argument, you have access to a time machine and can change the past.

However, if one did have a time machine, that opens up an entirely different bucket of ethics which this argument completely fails to address.

This applies to abortion regardless of whether other arguments are also valid - “but if your mother aborted you…” implies time travel.

This applies to immigration, regardless of whether other arguments are also valid - “but if immigration laws were different…” implies time travel.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[argumate]

those who would celebrate strong women must celebrate weak men.

[andhishorse]

that’s a straw man

[light-rook-offtopic]

He means it as a good thing. I think?

[andhishorse]

Oh…maybe?

[argumate]

to celebrate women challenging feminine norms and adopting roles traditionally coded as masculine while scorning men who challenge masculine norms and take on traditionally feminine roles is simply to reinforce the idea that masculinity as is superior to femininity, not a progressive stance but highly reactionary.

cultural engineering that attempts to use traditional masculinity to subvert itself comes across as deceptive pandering (”are you MAN ENOUGH to accept your girlfriend earning more than you do??”) and builds resentment.

much like anxious femininity trying to excel at sport but still look pretty doing it, pictures of bearded lumberjacks wearing pink or bikies braiding girls hair only emphasise that of course men can be feminine: but only if they make sure to signal masculinity so hard that no one could possibly get the wrong idea.

saying “girls, don’t waste your time on a man who doesn’t have his life in order / has a decent job / has a car that works / owns a neat apartment” is an ostensibly feminist statement (”you’re worth it!”) that is just recapitulating gender norms that are centuries old: the woman chooses a man who will provide for the family.

Hollywood loves to match young actresses with old men and we love to decry that practice. support older women! yes. but are we willing to watch stories about young men, weak men, immature men, fragile men, failing men?

society hates nothing more than a weak man, and celebrating strong women only doubles down on that. those who would celebrate strong women must celebrate weak men.

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

quillette.com

How I Survived the Title IX Star Chamber - Quillette

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[collapsedsquid]

You know, it’s not like science has fucking stopped entirely.  So why the hell do none of these sci-fi shows seems to have any vision?  It’s like ideas for sci-fi stopped being created in the 80s and they can’t use anything that wasn’t written about before 1990.

[discoursedrome]

In some cases I think it’s just “near-future shows are cheap”, but with Spaceship Shows, I think there’s actually a retro-futurism thing going on. Spaceship Shows are so rare now that they’re wedded to a particular era and symbology in the popular consciousness, so there’s an element of pastiche.

Star Trek always had the particular problem that it wanted to be seen as serious scientific space thinking, but also didn’t want to threaten the Motherhood Statement in any way, which leads to this weird situation where it has to scrupulously avoid all the implications of its own tech. Obviously that just gets worse the more of it there is!

[mitigatedchaos]

You don’t have to dive deep into sci-fi vision to be good, necessarily.  Battlestar doesn’t and (IMO) it was great.  But we never feel as though their technology is used radically out of sync with its implications, precisely because all their tech is fairly nerfed and there are in-story reasons about the issues with artificial intelligence.

@femmenietzsche

Does anyone have vision anymore?

Fk man, are you saying you aren’t going to greenlight my series about a retired white nationalist becoming a Pseudo-Han Chinese cyborg through genetic and surgical modification and working as a detective for a series of corporate-run faux ethnonationalist city-states on the Asia-Pacific rim?

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

[collapsedsquid]

You know, it’s not like science has fucking stopped entirely.  So why the hell do none of these sci-fi shows seems to have any vision?  It’s like ideas for sci-fi stopped being created in the 80s and they can’t use anything that wasn’t written about before 1990.

[mitigatedchaos]

Because Eclipse Phase is too unrelatable to general audiences.

We even got a live action Ghost in the Shell movie, and it really missed tons of opportunities in trying to dumb itself down for general audiences.  Perhaps the worst part of it is that Standalone Complex was really quite prescient about the power of memeforce!

[mitigatedchaos]

Though really, I also think that many Hollywood writers are mostly not of the sci-fi visionary caliber to go from “what if some dude became part robot?” to “what if every dude became part robot?”

The latter includes all sorts of cascading changes throughout society, seen in shows like Standalone Complex, with ordinary people becoming vulnerable to cyberbrain crime and reserving organs to be grown in pigs.  Psycho-Pass is really the spiritual successor here in that it will probably seem really prescient about the use of big data to analyze people for criminality in about 10-20 years, the way Standalone Complex seems prescient about crimes-as-memes.

But even then, those are what, two shows in a foreign country, where most of the shows are either not of that type, or not of that caliber.

How would American audiences have responded if Standalone Complex were a live-action TV show?