10501
The Flood / Re: Gatsby isn't really British
« on: December 01, 2014, 11:39:22 AM »
Fucking Queersby, more like.
Jaffa cakes are legally established as cakes.
Jaffa cakes are legally established as cakes.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to. 10501
The Flood / Re: Gatsby isn't really British« on: December 01, 2014, 11:39:22 AM »
Fucking Queersby, more like.
Jaffa cakes are legally established as cakes. 10502
Serious / Re: If you could institute any regime/ideology and have it work, what would it be?« on: December 01, 2014, 11:38:06 AM »Some mix between authoritarianism and egalitarianism. If everyone is equal, then they are all equally worthless and therefore will submit to the government for greatest efficiency. Of course this would include the abolishion of the family and privacy, but the government wouldn't allow the masses to have negative connotations towards those policies so there'd be no decline in happiness.This pleases me. 10503
The Flood / Darth Schwarzenegger« on: December 01, 2014, 11:36:45 AM »YouTube It's not a tumor. It's not a tumor, at all. 10504
Serious / If you could institute any regime/ideology and have it work, what would it be?« on: December 01, 2014, 09:43:08 AM »
A lot of people's views are tempered by pragmatism and social considerations, but if you could institute any ideology and have it work to a sufficient degree - what would it be?
In my heart, I'm very much a Bonapartist*. It'd be certainly nice, too, to be the Bonaparte in question. * Spoiler It refers to a political movement that advocates the idea of a strong and centralized state, where populist rhetoric supports a strongman or caudillo. For Bonapartists, the most significant lesson of the Revolution was that unity of government and governed was paramount. The honey bee was a prominent political emblem for both the First and Second Empires, representing the Bonapartist ideal of devoted service, self-sacrifice and social loyalty. 10505
Serious / Re: Why do some people root for the villains?« on: December 01, 2014, 09:37:26 AM »Well you root for Israel so you tell us.And you root for Islamic Nazis. I'm willing to try and split the difference, there. 10506
Serious / Re: Why do some people root for the villains?« on: November 30, 2014, 02:44:07 PM »Perhaps people go for the enemy because they usually lose in media, be it games, movies, or books. Rooting for the underdog I guess.That's an interesting point, to be honest. We know the Empire will lose in the end, but are they really the underdog? Given how they're represented, it doesn't seem like. Do people, knowing or unknowingly, think about underdogs based on likely outcomes or how they operate. 10507
Serious / Re: Why do some people root for the villains?« on: November 30, 2014, 02:36:34 PM »Studies show a vast majority of humans express compassion, rather then psychopathic tendencies.Well, considering only 1pc of human species are psychopaths, that's obvious. However, there has to be some innate level of respect for something when people root for the baddies? Are they simply cooler? Do people respect order and power? I'd so say, and if so, what're the variables which push this from mere respect to actual support. 10508
Serious / Why do some people root for the villains?« on: November 30, 2014, 02:21:30 PM »
What're the psychological motivators behind people rooting for the obvious villains of a series. This can happen when the sheer ridiculousness of the situation - such as Patriot by Mel Gibson, which tried to paint the British as borderline Nazis and just didn't work. And, of course, it can happen when the villain just absolutely steals the show, like Heath Ledger's Joker.
The explanation I find most interesting, however, is that in these instances where the prior cases don't apply, people will root for the side most similar to them. It bodes ill, to say the least, as I always root for the East India Training Company and the Galactic Empire. Although, to be honest, rooting for the Empire isn't particularly unusual. This is in Serious because I'm interesting in the psychological motivations behind rooting for the baddies when they aren't A) just a joke B) the focus. It's similar to the way people (not even Germans or alive at the time) can feel nostalgic, respectful or otherwise sympathetic to the Nazis. 10509
The Flood / Some bastard pushed me at work today« on: November 30, 2014, 01:24:08 PM »
I was walking down one of the aisle's in order to replace one of the full basket cradles with an empty one. Some big fat motherfucker was behind me and as he walked by he shoved me aside. I called him a cunt and we stared off for a couple of seconds.
Discuss cunts. 10510
The Flood / Re: Regarding Halo canon« on: November 30, 2014, 12:46:20 PM »Disney cannot delcare all of Star Wars EU to be non-canon.Yes they can. They own the franchise. 10511
The Flood / Reasons why the Empire actually isn't that bad« on: November 30, 2014, 12:45:29 PM »
Rebel Scrubs.
I. It drove technological development. II. They don't needlessly kill aliens, despite their humano-centrism. III. The Empire's government stimulated the economy. IV. It's actually fairer than the Old Republic. V. It's more effective than the Old Republic. VI. The Rebellion is actually quite unpopular. VII. They gave the Galaxy order. VIII. Their worst crimes are against terrorists. IX. Getting rid of the Jedi was positive for the rest of the Galaxy. X. They were the only reason the Yuuzhan Vong didn't take over the Galaxy. 10512
The Flood / Re: Regarding Halo canon« on: November 30, 2014, 12:39:50 PM »Except it's not retarded.As far as I'm aware, neither 343 nor Bungie has declared all of those things non-canon.I never said anything about Bungie or 343, I was going by retard logic used by some of the people here. Star Wars EU isn't canon because it's been declared non-canon. Since Halo's EU isn't under such a declaration, it doesn't carry over. 10513
The Flood / Re: Regarding Halo canon« on: November 30, 2014, 12:37:04 PM »
As far as I'm aware, neither 343 nor Bungie has declared all of those things non-canon.
10514
The Flood / Re: Are you smarter than the president? (Obama and Bush)« on: November 30, 2014, 12:35:02 PM »
I'm more intelligent than both of them.
10515
Serious / Re: Are arguments legit if they're based on morals or ethics?« on: November 30, 2014, 12:27:14 PM »Morality is obviously based on considerations of human well-being.Yes, because there are objective moral facts.Can you elaborate on that? 10516
Serious / Re: White people empathize less with darker skinner people« on: November 30, 2014, 11:40:48 AM »
No, this isn't true for me.
10517
Serious / Re: Double standards among atheists« on: November 30, 2014, 11:40:22 AM »
No.
The most persecuted religious group on the planet, currently, is Christians. 10518
Serious / Re: Since 2012, 7 people killed themselves because the NHS couldn't get them beds« on: November 30, 2014, 11:39:08 AM »What's the main purpose for universal healthcare over private care? Is the reason economical or ethical? (Is it better because more people can receive care or is it better because more people receiving care helps the economy?)Ethical. 10519
Serious / Re: Are arguments legit if they're based on morals or ethics?« on: November 30, 2014, 11:37:20 AM »
Yes, because there are objective moral facts.
10520
Serious / Re: All my views can be summed up in this.« on: November 29, 2014, 06:11:05 PM »Either.Homosexuality isn't a fucking choice. 10521
Serious / Re: All my views can be summed up in this.« on: November 29, 2014, 05:31:22 PM »If it's that way, then I'm sure there's a bit of something in everyone that you can agree with or admire. Whether that's a trait or a particular view on something. You can admire that, and hate the other part of them. You can also love the potential a person has or might have had.I don't care that Ted Bundy could've had a successful career in politics; I care that he murdered tens of people. I'm not concerned with fantasising about the could've-beens. 10522
Serious / Re: All my views can be summed up in this.« on: November 29, 2014, 05:25:14 PM »You can love them, but hate their actions.I'm sorry, I just can't find it within me to define people by any other way than their actions. Somebody's actions, it seems to me, are the best determinant of them as a person. 10523
Serious / Re: All my views can be summed up in this.« on: November 29, 2014, 04:50:30 PM »
Loving your enemies is as dangerous as it is stupid.
10524
Serious / Re: Is authoritarianism inevitable? Is it justifiable?« on: November 29, 2014, 04:11:48 PM »No and especially no.What if you exist under a regime in which you believe it is the best option for you, through ignorance and propaganda? Is that not qualitatively better, for you? 10525
Serious / Re: Libertarians are insufferable« on: November 29, 2014, 04:11:04 PM »
My problem with libertarianism is its insistence on liberty as the be-all-and-end-all of policy.
It's obviously efficiency. 10526
The Flood / No, describe ME in ten words or fewer« on: November 29, 2014, 04:01:44 PM »
Because I'm obviously more important than Rocketman.
10527
Serious / Is authoritarianism inevitable? Is it justifiable?« on: November 29, 2014, 03:48:51 PM »
We're dealing with two questions here, of course. The first is to ask whether or not authoritarianism is inevitable. It seems, at least to me, that political incentives are aligned in such a way as to promote the government to violate established civil liberties gradually and, at first, quite agreeable. Examples include measures against extremism ranging from strict immigration controls, minor curbs on free speech and extrajudicial murder.
I've no doubt that the conservative nature of bureaucracy, which is positive in its own right, is a contributory factor to the executive and the administration wanting to "cut corners" and perform actions which might not be legal in the pursuit of their aims. For instance, the GCHQ of Britain and the NSA of America collaborated when it came to data-collection and mass surveillance to bypass national laws which would otherwise prohibit such actions. The thing, of course, is that these incremental moves towards authoritarianism aren't malicious. The NSA and the GCHQ are, largely, just trying to fulfill their role as intelligence agencies. So, in this way, is authoritarianism inevitable? Secondly, are these curbs of civil liberties and the violations of our rights justifiable? I find myself reading books like Brave New World and, emotionally, wondering what's wrong with it. It seems that most arguments against authoritarian/totalitarian governments stem largely from emotion/intuition, so maybe it's just me when that doesn't seem to click. But on an intellectual level, could a government like that of Brave New World, or the Hunger Games, or even 1984 ever be justifiable? 10528
Serious / Government-created malware capable of stealthy, long-term spying« on: November 29, 2014, 03:11:59 PM »
From the Guardian
Quote An advanced, malicious software application has been uncovered that has spied on private companies, governments, research institutes and individuals in 10 countries since 2008, antivirus software maker Symantec Corp said in a report on Sunday. 10529
Serious / Re: Rise of the Stepford Student« on: November 29, 2014, 01:37:28 PM »
It looks interesting from a cursory glance.
Can I get a tl;dr? 10530
Serious / Re: UN Report Criticizes US Torture, Police Brutality« on: November 29, 2014, 10:34:38 AM »so much more than everybody here. ![]() Most people would probably agree that I'm in greater support of measures to ensure liberty, and I don't even self-identify as a libertarian that often. |