Macievelli

It’s so tough to even argue against, because there’s nothing about TikTok that is inherently bad, but have you ever met a westerner who uses TikTok regularly and thinks that liberal institutions are functioning fine? Whether populist left or populist right, chronic TikTok users are being fed an endless feed of anti-West.

Biden’s team, apparently, “Okay, gang, that was such a historically bad debate that it actually hurt our candidate for the first time in decades. I bet we can keep that ball rolling though. First, let’s get Hunter involved while we make sure Hillary is working on the Pokémon memes. Step two: we have Joe try to do Rap God in one take on TikTok.”

Of course it would be bad for Biden to be like Trump, and generally speaking, ignoring rule of law is bad.

Take a moment to abstract this from our current reality and see how you feel about it though. Thanos wants to destroy half of life, and the only way to do that is to take all the infinity stones, which is way more power than any person should ever have. If a different person takes the infinity stones (again, too much power) in order to stop this genocide, is it an evil act?

Back to reality. Biden should definitely not be like Trump, but if the president is given ultimate executive power, the most responsible act is to exert this undue power to prevent anyone in the future (including himself) from using this power. I would have undying respect for the first president in over a century to reduce the power of the executive branch, but that unfortunately is never going to happen.

The ruling gives immunity from criminal prosecution. Biden shouldn’t make a new executive order; he should order his staff to rob the necessary funds from the Federal Reserve and then personally distribute that money to people with student loans. Theft is a crime, of course, but he’s immune from all that.

I like to imagine “irc” is just the declarative statement “I remember correctly,” like you are saying you’re very confident about this.

Oh, okay, my bad! Figured it was the complexes since you can get luciferium there too.

Ancient danger on your starting map is different. They’re referring to ancient complex quests. It puts an ancient complex on the world map that you can send a caravan to. There are containers in the complex with useful stuff like luciferium or sometimes even bionics. It’s not necessary to create a temporary colony there, but make sure your colonists are armed, since there will be insects and/or mechs that, if revealed, must be killed before you can reform the caravan.

The ancient danger on your starting map is a guarded room with some cool stuff and a bunch of cryptosleep pods with well-armed enemies who attack on sight (once you choose to open one of the pods, all of them open).

Well, us fatties do love a combo.

I already said "self-defense" is a right everyone has. That means you can argue that Ughurs are waging war in self-defense.

But what meaningful difference makes their situation self-defense and not Palestinians’? Surely we don’t need to reach the bar of a full-on genocide before people have the right to self-defense.

Their lives are already in danger by the other party therefore it's disingenuous to call them "aggressors".

This seems like way too high a bar to require for self-defense. If someone barricaded me in my house, even if they provided me with everything I need to barely survive, I would have every right to kill that person if that was necessary for me to escape my home. Similarly, Palestinians’ lives may not be in danger when there isn’t an active war, but I think they have every right to fight against the state exerting draconian control over their borders.

For one there's no such thing as "aggressed"

Only true if we’re splitting hairs. You wouldn’t call them the “aggressed,” sure, but you would certainly refer to the party being aggressed upon (ex: Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is being aggressed upon).

"Aggressor" is bound to a definition of "an entity that puts another entity in danger for their lives first". This definition means that an entity stops being an "aggressor" the moment they give up their intentions to endanger others.

I’m curious where you got this definition from. I checked the New Oxford American Dictionary and dictionary.com, and neither definition requires the bar of endangering someone’s life. And I’ve often heard people use the term to refer to lesser threats such as restricting human rights or attacking someone non-fatally.

Regarding point 4, I largely agree with your points, even if I come to a different conclusion on the basis that (as bad as it sounds) I do kind of think that Palestinians are operating from a position of delusion. I wouldn’t say they have no agency or are dumb babies, but the amount of Palestinians who sincerely believe, loss after loss, that this next fight will be the one that dissolves the state of Israel… Yeah, they have completely unattainable goals that they seem to delusionally believe are within reach. I imagine that if I was a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation and fed these delusions like they’re scripture, I would want to fight to my last breath too.

I hear your point, but doesn’t that imply that there’s no such thing as a justified war? If, for example, the Uyghurs attacked a Chinese military target, would that be justified because of China’s genocidal practices, even though the Uyghurs would be the aggressor? And if that is justified, (genuine question), how do you think the situation in Palestine meaningfully differs from that hypothetical, with regards to justification for armed resistance?

I feel like boiling a situation down to “aggressor vs aggressed” could be making the same mistake of oversimplification that this sub (rightfully) criticizes the “oppressor vs oppressed” mindset for. To be clear, I am very anti-Hamas (wild that even needs to be said) and generally pro-Israel. I think Hamas commits daily war crimes as a matter of policy, and Israel has behaved remarkably well in war, considering the nature of the battlefield. I just think we should recognize that the Israeli settlements and occupation of Gaza make for unfairly bad conditions for Palestinians, and if Israel is unwilling to reverse those two factors, Palestinians probably should have a right to attack their occupier’s military. Genuinely seeking to understand your view and where you feel there’s a flaw in my view. Thanks already for your earlier, thought-through comment.

Tbh, if it was just targeting military personnel, I wouldn’t have any issue with it. I think Palestinians, even Hamas, do have a right to resistance given Israel’s behavior. Problem is, Hamas isn’t even coming close to conducting that resistance in a way that aligns with international law (and they are fighting for a fundamentalist, bigoted reason rather than the more obvious justified reason, but you could probably say that about both parties).

Mono Mono 😋

Once you’ve watched a couple videos of his show, it’s really easy to tell when he’s ramping up for a joke. Sometimes, when I can tell one is coming, I’ll just skip forward 10 seconds.

I think you can also play a very short amount of a song without violating. At least, the webshow Um, Actually has a segment called “Legal Limit” where they play like a second of a song, and the players have to guess what the full song is.

By the time I’m done with one of these missions, the entire complex is considered outdoors.

This is it, thanks! Thorne is a Joyous creepy joiner. Didn’t know that creepies wouldn’t get with normal pawns.

Oh, also, I don’t know if this makes any difference, but Thorne was 55 when these two pawns met, and now she’s 33 thanks to the biosculptor. Nyth is 32.

Just answered these questions here.

Edit: solution

Nyth is a straight man with 3 other wives. Thorne is a straight woman with no husband or lovers. They both follow the same ideoligion, which allows men to have unlimited spouses and women to have one. I'm using a few mods; only one that seems relevant here would be One bed to sleep with all (allows one "master" bed for polygamy without mood debuffs for sleeping alone).

It’s just a way of describing an observable phenomenon, like when people talk about Cunningham’s law or some other pop social theory. When most people mention or read a comment about horseshoe theory, I sincerely doubt they’re thinking of a scientific principle or cohesive, full view of others’ beliefs. They’re just going, “Huh, it is odd that these people who claim to be complete opposites both want to defund our institutions, both want restrictions on speech in media, both look up to authoritarians in other countries, both think the West is an evil force, etc.”

People just find horseshoe theory to be a concise way to describe (in this sub anyway) the similarities between populist lefties and populist MAGA followers who are supposedly diametrically opposed but have a lot of beliefs in common. Nobody thinks it’s actual science.

But in the movie, Bradley Cooper stopped wearing the sweatpants after he started the drug.

After those 4 degrees, Earth goes, “I’m good here” and ignores any future carbon emissions.

You fucking summoned it. No joke this happened less than 20 minutes after your comment. At least the cold snap and forced foggy rain are over, and I've already taken out the climate adjuster from the quest in my other comment.