Red Eyed Albino Owl
Is this a fairy
Whatever it is, it’s clearly ancient and powerful. Also cute and fluffy.
@argumate would you like to make a contract? :>
I look forward to the day that we use vines instead of emojis
it’s the logical progression
well, shit.
In the future, software on our phones will automatically analyze our most recent selfie and convert it to scalable vector graphic renderings of our faces, then adjust them to fit the standardized unicode facial character morphs using specialized neural networks.
Except for me. There will only be one photo on my phone, incorrectly meta-tagged as a selfie.
JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER
SHINZO ABE!
Anonymous asked:
What if pewdiepie loses his livelihood?
argumate answered:
Luckily he has accumulated sufficient capital that he has no further need to work to maintain a higher standard of living than most of the people on this planet.
Failing that I guess he can get a new livelihood.
Like any other financial instrument, after his net value becomes negative, he will be declared a loss and his assets will be sold to Russian businessmen to recover capital for creditors.
I was doing semi deep dive into Orion’s Arm after @immanentizingeschatons reminded me of it, and it got me thinking about post-scarcity and politics.
Specifically, I was comparing it to some of the other post-scarcity settings I’ve seen, like Eclipse Phase, Mindjammer, and Nova Praxis. One thing that all of these have in common is that the politics presented in the game seems off.
Nova Praxis and Mindjammer to my mind don’t really have political conflict. They try to describe some of the political units, but they seem to be stereotypes masquerading as politics or and otherwise just poorly described. Eclipse Phase and Orion’s Arm do have political units, but they’re fairly obviously based on the political viewpoints favored in the demographic and seem kind of goofy and impossible because of that.
And it strikes me that to some level this is an impossible problem. If you think there won’t be real politics in the post-scarcity future, I’m going to very much doubt that. But if you think that you can predict the nature of political conflict in the post-scarcity future, I’m also going to very much doubt that. So, either way, you’re stuck with writing a political scene that’s weird.
But really, can there truly be post-scarcity? Maybe with magic violating conservation of matter-energy, but without it, someone is going to want to use the mass of your asteroid to build their habitat to replicate their ideology.
I consider “post-scarcity” as describing when technology has advanced to the point where the common material desires like food,
housing, and entertainment of any person are trivially easy to fill.
Then aren’t we there already in some countries?
Indeed. “Post scarcity” more refers to “when people believe there is not a scarcity of stuff.” And as the discourse over the $500,000 New York family shows, it is unrealistic that that would ever happen no matter how many resources our society generates.
The year is 3122. Transhumanity has colonized the entire solar system. The total GDP of mankind and its descendant species long ago exceeded its 2340 high of 14 quadrillion US2016 dollars. A new discourse arises.
PRIVATIZE THE SUN
ＰＲＩＶＡＴＩＺＥ ＴＨＥ ＳＵＮ
The PewDiePie discourse seems to help illuminate two schools of thought regarding the inculcation of extremism and such.
One school of thought, favored by SJ and left-wing people, is that extremism is generative: if left unchecked, it grows.
The other school of thought, favored by less-than-left people, is that extremism is reactive: it is always growing in opposition to perceived overreach/overreaction.
@theaudientvoid @brazenautomaton @thathopeyetlives @argumate Thoughts?
what if elegant abstract general principles are insufficient to describe the full complexity of the world we inhabit
No Argumate, you stupid owl, it works in exactly the way most convenient for my ideology.
*Monitors resulting level of pro-owl extremism in order to test hypothesis.*
New term to describe people I don’t like: “Discourse X”
We keep having trouble coming up with good ways to describe the sorts of e.g. feminism that are harmful and abusive, so I propose that we go with “Discourse Feminism.” Discourse Feminism:
- focuses on naming and shaming individuals as a means of ideological enforcement and/or abuse
- tends to misuse academic terms, often in ways that are the exact opposite of their original meaning. Example: patriarchy, intersectionality, emotional labor
- really just wants a list of who the Bad People are so they can accuse anyone they dislike of being a Bad Person
- puts excessive focus on making sure people use the right identity labels (“if you think women are people you’re a feminist!) and PC language relative to actual substance
- treats anyone who disagrees as an Enemy To The Movement
But this is by no means limited to feminism! You can use it to describe the bad parts of any political group:
Discourse Social Justice
Discourse Anti-racism
Discourse Men’s Rights
Discourse Sex Positivity
Discourse Christianity
Discourse Communism
“Sh-shut up. I’m not a D-discourse!”
“Yes you are. Cast her into the pit!”
In the year 2028, Hipsters use curved LCD technology to recreate the old Cathode Ray Tube style monitors and televisions, only with bulky, laughably light-weight empty plastic housing. 90s-punk becomes a hit style for a few years.
the discourse around this Testosterone Rex book has been deeply irritating in its stupidity; I mean how many hours must be lost to arguing over whether it’s even theoretically possible for a man to sire more than one child a year.
perhaps we’ll look back on this as the high watermark for sex-does-not-exist smugness.
You clearly haven’t heard of my plan to use surrogates to have three dozen genetic children simultaneously. Other people, well… they just lack ambition.
the mods are awake, stop posting discourse
“The Postmodern Symbolism of Predatory Birds in Post-Rationalist Mythology”
@mitigatedchaos, with excerpts from WP:ForestWander, WP:Stemonitis, et al. Tumblr Journal of Sociology, 31 Mar 2017. (CC-BY-SA)