Sentrovasi

Posting the article here so you all can make your own minds up.

I think you fail to understand that a lot of the people replying to you are solely replying because of your tone. You’re not winning any argument against anyone because all they’re telling you is that you’re obnoxious. You can’t spin that into a win over racist people because you need to recognise that people can agree with you and still treat you with hostility.

You’re not standing up for anything by being volatile. The only reason why I’m even engaging with you on this is because of your original assumption that people who are making fun of the way you post must clearly be racists. If you can now agree that this is not substantively what they are talking about, and you are okay with that, then both of us can do without your moral grandstanding over how justified you are in doing this.

I just wanted to make sure you understood why people are treating you poorly, and will continue to treat you poorly into the future. These are not going to just be people who disagree with you. These will include people who agree, but think you’re a real piece of shit.

Nobody’s going to want to answer your “direct questions” or engage with your “assertions” (I’m leaving out “patience” because implicit in the idea of patience is manner, in which tone plays a big part and I still don’t think you see it).

Does that mean you “win”? I think maybe everyone will be better off if you go away thinking you do, but no, it really doesn’t.

This toxic way of thinking of needing to win conversations is also present in the first part of your anecdote where you claim that people used to “win” by asking you to calm down or stop using certain words. They’re not trying to beat you, they’re trying to engage in discourse that both sides can appreciate. If you literally cannot win an argument without resorting to namecalling or condescension, you really need to rethink the value proposition of your arguments.

And if you really think that you’ve won when people no longer want to engage with you, then, like I said before, maybe everyone is better off that way.

I mean, you literally called the guy stupid and criticised the post for a “complete lack of logic”: I agree with the other people that you write incredibly obnoxiously, especially if that’s what you regard as “polite”. Unfortunately claims of rationality can go hand-in-hand with a pseudo-intellectualism that is really grating when done in earnest.

Maybe rather than consider everyone else racist, you might do a bit of self-reflection and consider why people who clearly acknowledge that the main post is racist (see every other upvoted comment) still consider your post worse than the racism you’re criticising.

Assuming what he’s saying is true, I still keep coming back to this line:

“My boss said, ‘I would have killed someone who said what you said in the meeting.’”

How does someone say something like that? And how is this something that he’s never been called out for?

The other person is saying that devaluing the US dollar would make it easier for others to buy American products.

I assumed you thought they were talking about strengthening the US dollar, so I pointed out that the original post (yours, I realise now) was talking about devaluation. Not sure why you think devaluation would give greater buying power.

The original post was asking about why devaluing the dollar would be good for Americans.

The point they are making is if it ends up in a landfill anyway, then you’ve wasted more energy/resources recycling it.

If it stays on your shelf, that’s not what they’re talking about.

I think it’s an anti-riddle, or a joke, more than anything else.

I honestly can say I’ve never quicksaved to kill an NPC for slighting me.

Yeah, kinda puts paid to the idea that piracy is about sustainable, non-DRMed software for all when the one company whose niche is ensuring that such resources are available is being undermined like this.

Seems like it would be exactly what you’d expect, i.e. not ironic at all.

How long? A week? More?

Imagine if the last thing we saw before colliding with another planet was another alien race on that planet looking hopelessly right back at us.

It’s weird cos you’re the only person bringing up pirating first (others are bringing it up as a talking point you’ve raised), and that’s not the dichotomy - it’s not dubious reselling sites or pirating, it’s Humble Choice, the topic of your post, where the games are already discounted, the developers have decided to opt in, and some money is actually going to charity.

Even if you bring up your original post as providing “options for everyone”, it was written in the spirit of advertising grey market sites as an alternative to Humble Choice, and therefore it’s entirely fair that others are bringing up the harms of grey market sites so that everyone knows what the risks are between them. I used to use those grey market sites as a kid more than a decade ago before I understood that they were a tool by scammers to make their money, and now I no longer use them. It would only be honest for you to have talked about that in your original post rather than ignoring it because the only alternative to you is piracy.

I saw this and immediately thought about Nicky Case’s game on The Evolution of Trust. I was really glad to see it was referenced in the video as the main inspiration for it!

(https://ncase.me/trust) - Link because I think everyone should try it for themselves as well.

Be me

Post on 4chan asking others to rate my dinner

Photoshop a fork so nobody will think I don’t have a fork

MRW people ask me why I photoshopped a fork into the picture

I’m not saying do it, I’m saying run it through the computer and see whether it would work.

You’re wilfully applying a very stunted concept of “wanted” to a legal system that deals in fact. I’m not saying you don’t understand whatever it is you claim to be supporting. What I’m saying you do not understand is the concept of “wanting” and “mens rea” (as it applies in law, but also as it applies under your framework - you’ve chosen instead to just pretend it’s no longer relevant instead of redefining it under your framework - like I said, the laziest kind of science.) And there’s really no point in me repeating what I’ve said before.

Maybe what I’ll leave you with is a possible definition of “want” under your system, which is one step further in thought than it seems you’ve ever gone: an action is wanted if the action would have been taken with no immediate or overt external (needs to be defined) motivation. This means if they were abused as a kid and later this translated into abusing other people, they still wanted to abuse them.

(As a note, I’m not saying this is the correct definition, but this is what is needed for people to start discussing what should and shouldn’t be in this definition.)

Saying “nobody can want to do anything because determinism” is an incredibly lazy determinism because it’s starting with the axiom and then not bothering to come up with a proper framework to explain everything else in the world. If you continue to protest it not being lazy there’s really nothing else we have to talk about.

You don’t understand. Obviously everyone is a product of their environment. But after all of that, if the person wanted and intended to do something because of all of these different dispositions and upbringings and backgrounds, then they have mens rea.

Like I said before, it’s purely a finding of fact. Does it mean that there shouldn’t be mitigating circumstances? No, there might well be reasons to argue that they were only doing so out of desperation. Nonetheless, they had mens rea.

Recognising that there are all these complicated factors but not taking the time to at least make sense of them is the worst kind of determinism. Sure, there’s no free will in your conception. There still needs to be laws and concepts like mens rea still need defining to allow for the protection of “innocents” under the law.

Guilt and mens rea can be quite compatible with your admittedly strange idea of there being no free will (and yet trying to parse laws under a framework of people having free will), unless you believe that all acts are coercive (which is quite reductive).

All you need to ask yourself is if the person wanted and intended to do that, whatever the nexus of causes led up to them wanting to do the act.

It seems very weird (and a bit lazy) to subscribe to a framework of there being no free will and yet not even trying to contextualise the safeguards of the legal system to fit that framework. Sure you may agree with putting people in jail to prevent net societal harm, but mens rea is one of the checks to ensure that they will cause societal harm to others, and without being able to settle such a question of fact you will instead never be able to put anybody, even if they need to be put behind bars, there.