Boogie_Man

He should think AWOOOOGA OH OH OH HUH HIMUH AWOOOGA

"no"

For context: "Knifey Chaseies" is an historic pastime in Glasgow where this shop is located. An immigrant flare to a local tradition!

At what point does this constitute a hostile action against the user and what degree of retaliation is appropriate? Open question for everyone.

"I think it's important to pursue cross training opportunities for 'hit by a bus" situations and for organic, cross-pollinated efficiency. At least twice a week we should rotate puncher or punchee. Tuesdays I'll punch you, and Fridays we'll have Diane punch me. Besides, it'll keep your knuckles from getting too sore and it'll free up time on your end of week schedule to get those reports in".

I feel like I'm losing my mind I'm almost positive I've read these two comments on hacker news before about the exact same subject.

Man steps back politely until he's able to politically grandstand about it - News at 11

Simply out of curiosity, does your wife bear even a slight resemblance to your grandmother when she was younger?

I don't mean to misrepresent. I am not Larry Sanger. I thought it relevant to HN and interesting because it was written by the co-founder of Wikipedia and because it appears to me to be a focusing of an analytical "Hacker" mind to the question of theology, which seems to be of greater interest to HN browsers lately.

Personally, it was interesting to me because it represents a more philosophical approach to the Christian religion than the subjective, social, or (quite frankly) economic approach I commonly see

With all respect to Martin Luther, he was also enormously rotund. Gluttony seems to have been the main vice of several important theologians.

I might accidentally be using a dated term for it, Wikipedia redirects to "Ethnic Religion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion

Presumably tribal religions

I wrote it

"He is here, he is here!" The lunatics rave.

"In the wind! In the walls! In the young bride's grave!"

"In the seams of the scenes on the television screen.

In the silence in the air after a church bell's ring,

Hangs a shudder of a whisper of a presence unseen.

The echo of the terror of The Yellow King!"

He travels in dreams - In poisonous screams

A plague on mankind. A plague on mankind

The fall of man. Death in the Fall

The man in the mirror is no man at all

See Hali's clear scrying face round which acolytes assemble

Tremble when as one they bellow: "Behold, the King in Yellow"

Does wanting to keep master/slave and white/blacklist while also keeping information and resources for people historically (and to some extent currently) disadvantaged by systematic oppression mean that basically everyone will be mad at me? What do you call this position?

Edit: The Google admin panel won't even populate the "allowlist" when you search whitelist which is frustrating. I'd at least like it to show up, even if it's believed to be important enough to change.

I stoped using Spotify when they committed the unforgivable UI sin of "loading a page and then moving elements on that page when web calls complete" that resulted in me clicking on something other than what I had intended to because it changed with my thumb a nanometer from the screen. It was a good 20% of the time and it made me insane.

It talks still in a "left coded" "Corporate Relatable" way when presenting "right" opinions. I don't have a point, it's just interesting. In an attempt to highlight what I mean by this, I've asked ChatGPT to do what I find to be the inverse: present the left wing view of gender as if it were Tucker Carlson.

Good evening. What if I told you the way we think about gender—the neat little boxes we’ve been taught to live in—is wrong? Radical? Maybe. But stay with me here.

For years, we’ve been told there are only two genders, male and female. That’s it. End of story. But what if that story is incomplete? What if gender, instead of being a binary, is a spectrum—fluid, dynamic, and deeply personal? It’s not just about chromosomes or biology, they argue. It’s about identity, expression, and the diversity of human experience.

Now, think about this. We already accept that people are unique in almost every other way. Some are tall, some are short, some are artistic, some are analytical. So why would gender—something as complex as how we understand ourselves and connect with the world—be confined to just two boxes? Doesn’t that feel a little...limiting? Maybe even a little outdated?

The left’s argument is this: Gender isn’t static. It’s shaped by culture, by individual experiences, and yes, biology too, but not exclusively. And it’s not some radical new idea. Cultures throughout history—Native American Two-Spirit identities, Hijra in South Asia—have embraced more than two genders for centuries. This isn’t new. What’s new is the resistance to acknowledging that.

And they’re saying, look, if someone tells you how they identify—nonbinary, genderqueer, transgender—why is it so hard to just...listen? Respect it? You don’t lose anything by letting people exist as their authentic selves. But they gain everything. Dignity. Recognition. The freedom to live without fear.

Now, you might be thinking, ‘What does this mean for society? For tradition? For science?’ Fair questions. But here’s the thing. Progress often challenges what we thought we knew. It makes us uncomfortable before it makes sense. So maybe, just maybe, it’s time to open our minds, even just a little.

Something to think about. We’ll be right back.

>Some games, like the early-2000s Sonalysts simulations, accurately simulate TMA, but they are so complex that they are hard to learn. As a qualified submarine officer, I still couldn't figure out how to play Dangerous Waters.

We love our wargamers don't we folks

Always leave them wanting more

Phoenicia will rise again

To heavily paraphrase a short of stature comedian: Childhood and School is basically jail. You're confined with a bunch of violent sociopaths, have minimal agency over what you do everyday, spend most of your free time trying to smoke weed out of improvised pipes, and the greatest reward you can obtain is like a bag of Doritos.

I've not complained about anyone, fictional or otherwise.

If your assertion is that getting someone off of drugs in the short term plays absolutely no role in getting someone off drugs in the long term, then I'm not really sure what to say to you. It's my understanding that people primarily get and stay sober out of fear of losing absolutely everything and dying. The trouble with rehabilitating the homeless is that they've effectively lost everything but their lives, and yet remain addicted. In this sort of situation, involuntary commitment would necessarily have to involve serious attempts at community building to show them they can have things in their life again - if they stay clean.

Respectfully, your glibness and the borderline denial of reality makes it difficult to have this conversation because I don't feel as if I'm typing with someone who legitimately wants to improve the situation. Most seriously, your suggestion that I get myself addicted to drugs (which demonstrates that you've completely neglected to consider that you could be typing with a person who has had substance abuse issues - it hasn't even occured to you) indicates that you're not taking this seriously, but rather attempting to appear virtuous by banging on about freedom and being totally unafraid while preventing any possible consideration of solutions to a major humanitarian crisis.

Man, multiple people were ready to "go in on" Calvin which really wasn't what I intended. I was recently drafting a little ten part quick and dirty comparison of Christian denominational views on the most important/relevant theological concepts and reading about the Old Lutherans in this post really made me think about how seriously they took these things because they were literally true to them. It is either an admirable or a terrifying thing depending on your perspective.

To answer your question as well as I can from their perspective, the reformed understanding of pneumatic presence vs their understanding of the sacramental union and being forced to participate in the eucharist in that heretical way, would quite literally be grounds for leaving the continent.

Probably because Texas had just recently become a state at that point and because of the Adelsverein and/or the number of ethnic Germans already there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelsverein https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Germans

Das Yehaw

Try to make me go to church with the Calvinists I'll flee the country too

I'll decide without the slightest moral compunction: If you're addicted to fentanyl and living on the street you're getting involuntarily committed.

This is correct and it's all Hegel's fault.

Convincing your drunk friend to go to the suicide clinic and kill himself is the absolute pinnacle of "thing that's the most hilarious thing in the world while you're smashed but is absolutely horrifying the second you wake up the next morning".

Anecdotally, I've heard that there's a strong link between heavy boozing and suicide, especially via firearm. One wonders if it's determined people needing courage, or drunk people becoming determined.

I think this might be related to AI's difficulty related to contextualization. If I imagine Chris Rock or Kat Williams delivering these lines it almost works.

There are a few reasons why I believe it's important to separate intelligence from moral goodness

The first and most basic is because they are different things, and for the sake of clarity different things should have different words to refer to them.

The second is because it allows us to have intelligent conversations about people who are intelligent but morally bad, or who are unintelligent but morally good. The person with an IQ barely above that of the strict definition of mentally retarded (or below, but questions of agency and responsibly arise so we won't use them in our example) who recognizes the humanity in every person and volunteers at the soup kitchen every chance he gets is morally good for doing so. The 180IQ engineer who manages the highly complex train schedule to keep the extermination camps running at capacity is morally bad for doing so.

The third is because it allows individuals to recognize that blind respect of intelligence which is unguided by morals or wisdom is a fool's errand.

The fourth is because is prevents the moralizing of language from hampering the clarity of language

The fifth is because the conflation of intelligence and morality provides an easy pathway to morally wrong positions. If the messaging is that "evil people are dumb!" and an impressionable individual encounters an intelligent person making a persuasive argument for something which is morally wrong, you've robbed them of a framework with which to engage and combat this person's ideas.

The sixth and final reason is that modification of language in this way hampers our ability to consider the world independent of our societal preconceived notions. I found the previous comments in this chain ironic because the individual who was calling a great (highly intelligent) philosopher a dunce for being unable to see beyond his cultural ethical norms was doing so from a position which is deeply entrenched in his current cultural and ethical norms, i.e. the inherent evils of slavery, the requirement of strict moral purity, the compulsion to attack every perceived positive characteristic of someone who is morally bad in order to devalue them and their intellectual contributions, and the perception of the world as a pitched battle between good and evil wherein righteous indignation should be one's perpetual state.

Now of course I agree with this commentator's ethical preconceptions related to slavery, but that's secondary to the importance of the things I listed above in how I approach Aristotle. I mean no disrespect and I hope this has been helpful in understanding my perspective.