scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/4gzsla.md

## [D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

* Author: u/AutoModerator *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/4gzsla/d_friday_offtopic_thread/
* Score: 15

* Created: 2016-04-29T15:05:08

### Post:

Welcome to the Friday Off-Topic Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? The sexual preferences of the chairman of the Ukrainian soccer league? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could possibly be found in the comments below!


### Comments:

> **u/alexanderwales** [+13]  *Time flies like an arrow* (38 minutes later)
> 
> I need a sort of "offensiveness check".
> 
> I have a short story that's most of the way written which has, as the central premise, that in 1970 a pill was invented which changes homosexuals and bisexuals into heterosexuals. The story is then partly an alternate history of the gay rights movement and partly a meditation on personal identity, social pressure, and terminal/instrumental values.
> 
> Part of offensiveness is in terms of presentation, which I'm doing my best on. I'm more worried about the other half, which is things that I just don't understand as being offensive. And I don't really mind offending people, I just want to do it for the right reasons.
> 
> So is the counterfactual premise of there being a way to no longer be gay irredeemably offensive? Is the idea that some people would choose to be straight and others would choose to be gay offensive?

>> **u/blazinghand** [+13]  *Chaos Undivided* (an hour later)
>> 
>> Not inherently offensive, but LGBT people often have to deal with people saying that it's a choice, so it's stepping on some toes. People who have traits that are not chosen by them and of which they are also proud don't like the suggestion that it might be a choice. Although your story is fictional and in fact is exploring a *different* world where it is a choice, it may step on toes.
>> 
>> It's all in the execution. Done well, it would not be offensive. It could in fact be really well-received, if for no other reason than that it shows that the world would be really different if sexuality was truly a choice. Done poorly, it would be in bad taste. 
>> 
>> For example, if you wrote a story in which people could change their physical sex with a pill, and the entire story was how awful it was to use this pill and how people should keep their birth sex or else it's unnatural, you should expect to get some flak. However, a thoughtful meditation on the nature of sex, gender, and socialization would be great. Done well, I don't expect you'll see problems.

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+8]  *Time flies like an arrow* (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> > For example, if you wrote a story in which people could change their physical sex with a pill, and the entire story was how awful it was to use this pill and how people should keep their birth sex or else it's unnatural, you should expect to get some flak.
>>> 
>>> Other way around, I'd think. If you write a story with a pill that changes someone's gender and you include a strong emphasis on dysphoria and the unnaturalness of feeling like the opposite gender, then you're showing the everyday experience of the non-transitioned transgendered. But if you make a story where changing gender is great, fun, and done casually with no consequence, you're undermining that experience. (When I went to Gencon there was a panel with Ed Greenwood where he explained that gender swapping items and magic had been mostly removed from D&D because they mostly just served to trivialize or make light of the issue.)

>>>> **u/blazinghand** [+4]  *Chaos Undivided* (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, interesting! I hadn't thought about that. I was more thinking about it being used by transgender people, and aggressive religious people (and the author) saying that it was terrible and unnatural to use it, but it's true that anything that trivializes people's experiences of dealing with these difficulties could be bad.

>>>> **u/MultipartiteMind** [+1]  (5 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> I find myself curious about whether it's possible for us to meaningfully predict whether the dysphoria is inherent, or whether it's tied to the current effective-irreversability.  I've heard one (body-uncomfortable) person express the intention to do self-violence to physically address the issue, and another body-comfortalble) person express unhesitating interest and curiosity at the prospect of trying a body of the opposite sex.
>>>> 
>>>> --To compare it to a less/poignant example, I find myself (baselessly) wondering if it's like hair.  If you have long beautiful hair that you spent six years of care and maintenance to grow out (and preferred it to having short hair), and then one day someone cut it off while you were asleep, you would feel as though you had been stabbed, and be deeply upset about it until you had finally returned to your previous state.  If you had remote control that could change your hair length at any time, though, then you might go for months at a time with short hair without discomfort, the preference for long hair temporarily outweighed by the change of scene feeling, the way you could otherwise casually have a ponytail every so often even if you normally preferred having braids (and would be upset if you weren't allowed to have braids).
>>>> 
>>>> --Hmm, I ended up imagining a story which starts out with everyone changing to a different novelty body every week/month/year or so, then after a maintenance sabotage (or evacuation requirement to a different planet, or anything preventing foreseeable future use of that technology) people starting to feel discomfort and creeping horror (and presumably regret) at the thought of being stuck in their current bodies for the rest of their lives.
>>>> 
>>>> Now then, what might happen to a society when all or the majority of participants feels that way..?  (I'm put in mind--though not directly relevant--of a story idea of a cloning machine accident, a city ending up entirely filled with clones of the same person.  Some keep trying to act the same way as before the accident, some form small groups with polarised behaviours, each acting as a single 'person' with each body taking the role of a mental aspect, and some polarising into the same aspects but instead forming organisations filled with other clones following that aspect.  (The climax is when the organisations get swiped out from under their anti-government leaders by clones who have borrowed the governments' resources to become even more compelling representations of those aspects than the leaders who set the organisations up.))

>> **u/thecommexokid** [+8]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> As a point of reference, you might consider the wide range of responses that individuals from the Deaf community have had to cochlear implants.

>>> **u/OutOfNiceUsernames** [+2]  *fear of last pages* (6 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I wanted to suggest the same thing (remembered reading about it once before)!

>> **u/DaystarEld** [+5]  *Pokémon Professor* (4 hours later)
>> 
>> >So is the counterfactual premise of there being a way to no longer be gay irredeemably offensive?
>> 
>> A way to no longer be gay? Maybe not. A pill that medically "fixes" gayness, even in bisexuals? In the vast majority of ways it would be presented, probably. It's taking as its basic assumption that homosexuality is something that is "medically curable," ie, defective, abnormal, unhealthy, etc, even if you don't intend it that way. This plays way too much into the narrative of the anti-LGBTQ community to not press many people's anger buttons, to the point that any nuance might be lost, or never even given a chance to be seen.
>> 
>> My suggestion would be to have the pill either flip one's sexuality, or make anyone who takes it bisexual so they can "live straight." This still allows all the moral arguments about sexual identity and social pressure and so on, but also allows you to widen the scope of the argument a bit toward people who maybe want the pill for reasons other than to "renounce gayness."
>> 
>> Or would that change things too much from what you envision?

>>> **u/BoilingLeadBath** [+2]  (9 hours later)
>>> 
>>> To be fair:
>>> 
>>> * The DSM, at one point in time, did in fact list homosexuality. Now, whether that's worth dragging up to re-examine...
>>> 
>>> * Lots of socially-created "conditions" are medically curable: having foreskins, having small breasts... and I pick those examples because there's lots of noisy people on both sides of the debate for/against. Just because the current social climate doesn't prevent doctors from doing something...

>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+2]  *Pokémon Professor* (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> >The DSMV, at one point in time, did in fact list homosexuality. 
>>>> 
>>>> The DSM did indeed list it as a disorder, way back before 1973. It was  removed from the DSM-II, though some form of it remained for another version or two. Today it's widely understood as the outdated perspectives of the past affecting clinical perspectives: whether people consider it a disorder is not the same thing as it being one.
>>>> 
>>>> > this doesn't make them unhealthy or defective.
>>>> 
>>>> By whose justification? Certainly not mine, and probably not yours, but the question is about common perceptions.
>>>> 
>>>> By most accounts, the modern, Western argument for removing foreskins is a medical one. The data doesn't support the perspective, as far as I'm aware, and the religious or Puritanical roots of the practice aren't often brought up, but if you actually ask people, it very much is considered by circumcision advocates as a positive health decision.
>>>> 
>>>> Even putting that aside however, the problem with comparing things like foreskin and small breasts with homosexuality as a "socially created condition" however is that they're not nearly as tied with identity and agency, and not nearly as politicized.

>>>>> **u/BoilingLeadBath** [+2]  (11 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Today, [the former inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM] is understood as the outdated perspectives of the past affecting clinical [thought]...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Granted, I'm not familiar with the arguments people used to support the inclusion of the state in the book, but I would be very surprised if the above would pass the ideological Turing test... frankly, it sounds too much like a fully general counterargument against anything which people used to believe, but is now unfashionable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...WRT my examples of medically alterable human features... I was just saying: "look, just because there's a legal surgery for it..."
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...but you already held that position.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Further, I suppose you are right - if you use those as writing prompts, you don't get forms which you can use to present the ungaying pill in an inoffensive way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> (I also think there might be some interesting patterns you could pick up from the social setting of the two situations, though I'm having trouble articulating them.)

>>>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+5]  *Pokémon Professor* (12 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > frankly, it sounds too much like a fully general counterargument against anything which people used to believe, but is now unfashionable.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's more that the definition, and interpretation, of a psychological disorder has changed:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> “A mental disorder is a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or disability or with a **significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.**”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That last part is important, as it offers an objective metric by which to judge the difference between someone who likes to wear a wolf costume for, say, sexual adventure, and someone who likes to wear a wolf costume to roam in the wilderness and live with wolves.  The former is a kink, the latter might point toward a mental disorder.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One can argue that being homosexual in a culture where homosexuals are jailed or stoned to death might constitute a "significantly increased disk of suffering death, pain, etc," but that's obviously the result of their surroundings. By most metrics the definition simply does not apply to those in the Western world.

>>>>>>> **u/MultipartiteMind** [+1]  (5 days later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Catch-22 comes to mind (though it uses a converse instead of a contrapositive, fallaciously).  "Willingness to fight as part of a nation's army (significantly increased risk of all those things) is a mental disorder!  Applying for discharge on the basis of a mental disorder shows that you must be sane!  (And thus not eligible for discharge.)"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Edit:  A better example might be {a waiver that you have to sign to enter} which disallows you from entering.

>>>>>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+1]  *Pokémon Professor* (6 days later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Such a great book.

>> **u/Frommerman** [+5]  (23 hours later)
>> 
>> Interestingly, this is less counterfactual than you might think. The deaf community has been rocked by the advent of cochlear implants, which is for most purposes a cure for congenital deafness. Some in the community feel that it is a form of genocide, wiping our their culture because "normal" folks consider them impaired, while others consider it a godsend. Those two groups don't get along well, and there's been a rather large cultural upheaval among the deaf community ever since cochlear implants became possible.

>> **u/Colonel_Fedora** [+4]  *Ravenclaw* (46 minutes later)
>> 
>> It's not offensive in and of itself, but it's important to understand that emotions run high about this kind of topic and a lot of lgbtq people are understandably defensive of the validity of their identities. So basically you're kind of entering a minefield in territory you aren't personally familiar with. I'm not going to tell you not to write this story, especially since it has the potential to be really interesting, but I think you should practice empathy as best you can.
>> 
>> I'd be happy to try and answer whatever questions you have, but obviously I can only give you my perspective as a transwoman and lesbian.

>> **u/Iconochasm** [+2]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> That was a minor plot element in The Forever War.
>> 
>> As for the offensiveness, a thoughtful exploration would be welcomed by most everyone who reads the sort of stories you write.  That said, you're wading into a cultural minefield, and someone, somewhere will likely be incensed and outraged for some reason.

>> **u/None** [+4]  (4 hours later)
>> 
>> >So is the counterfactual premise of there being a way to no longer be gay irredeemably offensive? Is the idea that some people would choose to be straight and others would choose to be gay offensive?
>> 
>> Lemme put it this way: it's no more innately offensive than any other form of science-fictional biological self-modification *that general audiences have never heard of, totally fail to consider from the scifi fan's point of view, and will plant big fields of mines in*.

>> **u/OutOfNiceUsernames** [+2]  *fear of last pages* (an hour later)
>> 
>> > in 1970 a pill was invented which changes homosexuals and bisexuals into heterosexuals → some people choose to be straight and others choose to be gay
>> 
>> I think the only way such a story would be(come) offensive just with this is if the story’s narrative was making it so. For instance, if a premise like this was used to tell: 
>> 
>> * how of course *all* gay people would decide to change their preferences if given the valid chance, or 
>> * how the only people who refused to take the pill were also mentally ill, or 
>> * that the majority of gays took the pill and now the population in general had the right to ignore the rights of the rest or to re-evaluate them as being mentally ill, etc.
>> 
>> >And I don't really mind offending people, I just want to do it for the right reasons. 
>> 
>> You can’t do that as you can’t be non-offending in general — it’s like rule 34, there will always be someone offended by it, no matter what “is” is.
>> 
>> Regarding the offensiveness of modification of traits that define a person’s self-identiy: if we use an analogy for this, then the answer comes as obviously negative as well. Is a premise of people changing their gender (species, from organic to inorganic or synthetic, etc) offensive by itself?

>> **u/gabbalis** [+1]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> Oh by the way, isn't that basically the plot of X-Men: The Last Stand? Well, except without the terrorism, and the only superpower is bisexuality.

>>> **u/Roxolan** [+15]  *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> It is, but [any moral lesson is lost](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticAesop) because superpowers, in addition to being a homosexuality metaphor, *are superpowers*. It's easier to justify taking the pill when your power uncontrollably kills people on skin contact, and homophobia is not morally equivalent to people-who-can-literally-wipe-out-humanity-with-their-mind-phobia.

>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+7]  *Time flies like an arrow* (9 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Yup, completely agree with this. There was a scene in one of the early X-men movies where someone says "Have you tried not being a mutant?" Like, that's funny, but there's literally no drawback to having the ability to turn things to ice, and there's also no reason that you ever have to reveal it to the public if you don't want to. And some of the powers *suck* so it makes a lot of sense that they would want to not be a mutant anymore.
>>>> 
>>>> Further, it never really made sense to me that the United States government declared a war on mutants rather than just bringing them into the fold with heavy incentives. Given the expansiveness of comics, I'm sure it's been done at some point, but come on ... why in the world would the government see someone like Multiple Man as something other than an asset? Just pay the man! (This annoys me even more when the X-men exist in the same universe as the Avengers.)

>>>>> **u/MugaSofer** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Isn't that what Weapon X was?

>>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+3]  *Time flies like an arrow* (a day later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind of, not really. The fictional history of the Weapon X program changes a lot and it's gone through a lot of iterations, but they do lots and lots of clandestine work that's probably based on real work done by the United States like MKUltra. Mind control, brainwashing, etc. They also engage in trying to create their own mutants, or stealing the power of the mutants they find.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And that's all fairly believable; rogue military agency doing its own thing without oversight happens all the time. But what puzzles me is that the *other* parts of the government, which in most continuities know about mutants (since mutants are apparently feared and hated all around the world) aren't trying to scoop them up. Or corporations, for that matter. Most mutants have huge practical, mundane applications for their power, above and beyond their combat abilities (if any). But it's only the clandestine, shadowy, military organization that pursues them, and then not through the conventional means of just paying them money or getting them whatever legal or personal help they need.

>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+1]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (an hour later)
>> 
>> What happens when a straight person takes the pill?

>>> **u/OutOfNiceUsernames** [+3]  *fear of last pages* (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> I’d guess it to depend on how specifically the pill functions. E.g. if it allows people to modify their sexual preferences in general, then people would be switching between “gay” and “non-gay” all over the place). Or if all it did was “default” to heterosexuality, then it wouldn’t do much to heterosexuals at all, aside maybe from nudging them closer to 0 on the Kinsey scale.

>>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+3]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (an hour later)
>>>> 
>>>> In the former case, I can see the military using it to improve morale. In the latter case, parents will probably use it as a preventative measure, making gay rights a moot point within a generation or so.

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+1]  *Time flies like an arrow* (7 hours later)
>>> 
>>> The current plan is just "move closer to 0 on the Kinsey scale", but I don't think there's going to be any discussion of mechanism or anything like that.

>>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+1]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (7 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> so then everyone will just take it five times, and we get the most hypermasculine/feminine society imaginable after a few generations.
>>>> 
>>>> What happens if someone taking hormone therapy uses it?

>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+5]  *Time flies like an arrow* (13 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> It doesn't make people more or less masculine/feminine, it only changes sexual orientation. So if you're an effeminate gay man prior to taking the pill, you'd be an effeminate straight man afterward, and if you're a masculine gay man you'll end up as a masculine straight man.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As for hormone therapy ... it's tough, because we don't *actually* know what causes sexual orientation or how it might be medically altered, which is part of why the story is just going to leave the mechanism blank. There are some scattered reports of people changing sexual orientation during transition already, but so far as I'm concerned the actual science is thin on the ground (there are some contested papers on the matter, I believe). It's not going to feature in the story at all and the question will be left as an exercise for the reader.

>> **u/None** [+1]  (15 hours later)
>> 
>> I think you should do a bunch of consultation with LGBT people about this. I know I would have taken a pill like that when I was a teenager, but if I had, I'd want to un-take it (or take the "antidote") now. Not just because of the reduced stigma but probably partly as a result of the struggle of activists before me. I also think you should make sure you include or allude to figures like Marsha P Johnson, Sylvia Rivera and Storme DeLarverie, because they are often conspicuously absent from modern LGBT narratives set in the 70s.
>> 
>> Maybe talk to /r/lgbt about it?
>> 
>> Also I'd like to second what /r/OutOfNiceUsernames said about making sure you consider how a lot of people would NOT want to take the pill.
>> 
>> Probs include or allude to queer-acting, queer-coded or gender nonconforming kids being forcibly sent to gay conversion camps by their parents too, that's a thing.

>> **u/SevereCircle** [+1]  (2 days later)
>> 
>> I'm gay and I do not find it offensive. I would take it for the same reason most straight couples do not choose to adopt: I want to be able to have children with the person I marry who have traits from both of us, and I'd like to be able to do it without asking permission from a third party, and barring centuries of discovery in genetic engineering overnight that's impossible for me. I think I'm a minority in that respect. If I could choose freely I'd be 50-50 bisexual until I'm ready to marry, then marry a woman.

>> **u/gabbalis** [+0]  (53 minutes later)
>> 
>> Define 'Offensive' in either objective or at least intersubjective terms first. Until then I can only really say that *I* don't find it offensive. But I don't find anything offensive, and ∀x(∃y(ishuman(y)∧findsoffensive(y, x)) so...
>> 
>> >So is the counterfactual premise of there being a way to no longer be gay irredeemably offensive?
>> 
>> Sounds like a perfectly valid thought experiment.
>> 
>> >Is the idea that some people would choose to be straight and others would choose to be gay offensive?
>> 
>> I'm fairly certain that this would legitimately be the case in said scenario, and I think it's ethically reasonable to explore the likely outcomes of a thought experiment through writing regardless of whether people find it offensive.

>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+3]  (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> > Define 'Offensive' in either objective or at least intersubjective terms first. 
>>> 
>>> I usually split words like "offensive" (and "annoying", "attractive," "compelling", "provocative" etc.) into a few pieces when thinking about them.  It doesn't describe what the word itself *truly* means, but that's not the part of the language that I have problems with.
>>> 
>>>  1. Would this offend me, personally?
>>>  2. Would this offend the audience/bystanders?
>>>  3. Would this offend people who would *not* see it, if they actually did see it?
>>>  4. Does this match a culture's standards for "what is offensive", regardless of the answers to 1, 2, and 3?
>>> 
>>> \#1 is pretty much a moot point here, but it acts as a proxy for #2 since we are likely to be part of the audience.
>>> 
>>> \#2 is probably what people care about the most, as offending people unnecessarily is bad, and the audience is a large number of people.
>>> 
>>> \#3 is a safety check, in case you're wrong about who will see the content.  One non-audience-member is less important than one audience member, but there are millions of them.
>>> 
>>> \#4 is a bit odd, but it still affects people's behaviors.  I know that I avoid things that unnecessarily break my cultural standards for "offensiveness" even if I'm not offended by it, and I assume that other people do too.

>>>> **u/gabbalis** [+2]  (4 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> >offending people unnecessarily is bad
>>>> 
>>>> That depends greatly upon one's definition of 'necessary'. If you call any case of offending someone that had a better net utility than the other options 'necessary' then I can agree.
>>>> 
>>>> >One non-audience-member is less important than one audience member, but there are millions of them.
>>>> 
>>>> It seems like you should be using a statistical distribution of the likely audience here. In other words you should sum over each human's (potential offense * likelyhood of reading.) That takes everyone unlikely to be in the audience into account in the same way as those that are probably in the audience.
>>>> 
>>>> >I know that I avoid things that unnecessarily break my cultural standards for "offensiveness" even if I'm not offended by it, and I assume that other people do too.
>>>> 
>>>> This seems illogical. Even if reading something offensive to others brings vast swaths of personal utility to yourself, you still avoid it simply because it is offensive to others? Certainly there might be risks associated with other people finding out, but at some point the benefits must outweigh the costs. Unless of course that has simply never happened to you?

>>>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> >If you call any case of offending someone that had a better net utility than the other options 'necessary' then I can agree.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pretty much.  It would have to be better than doing nothing and also better than the other alternatives I can come up with.
>>>>> 
>>>>> > It seems like you should be using a statistical distribution of the likely audience here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's too much work for too little gain IMO.  Keeping it as one homogeneous group of "people" is too imprecise, I couldn't think of a way to make three or more useful and well-defined groups, and a continuous function based on the probability that they will see it is too much work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> >Even if reading something offensive to others brings vast swaths of personal utility to yourself, you still avoid it simply because it is offensive to others?
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Avoid" was too strong of a word.  It's a negative trait, but that's not enough to categorically reject something.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also keep in mind that this breakdown applies to more words than just "offensive", and that the relative values of the points can change as a result of that.  For example: I'm having a conversation with another person and I want to know whether or not it's "engaging". I would care about myself and the other person a lot, the bystanders a little bit, and basically ignore the wider population and cultural standards.

>>> **u/SevereCircle** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>> 
>>> I would define offensive as "promoting ideas that are harmful to society, especially in the context of minorities". I do not think the idea fits this definition.

> **u/Cariyaga** [+6]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (3 hours later)
> 
> You know, being mindful of my emotions and thought processes is usually fantastic, but it does get kind of irritating in social situations sometimes. I end up in a sort of decision paralysis because I realize that, knowing the reasons that I feel the way I do, saying a certain thing would be manipulative, even if it's true to how I feel.
> 
> I don't know if I got my point across very well there, but eh. Needed to vent a little.

>> **u/Kishoto** [+3]  (10 hours later)
>> 
>> What's paralyzing you exactly? The thought that you are consciously and intentionally manipulating a person/people?

>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+3]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (12 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Yes. I don't like to think of myself as the kind of person that would do that in normal circumstances, but it becomes an issue (well, I say that, but it's really only mildly irritating) because I have the awareness of my emotions and mental state to tell, at least when I'm not in the midst of a conversation (it's less an issue in the immediate sense like that unless I give myself time to think), when the reasons behind my unconscious behaviors is that I want something, and I feel guilty for that.

>> **u/SvalbardCaretaker** [+1]  *Mouse Army* (2 days later)
>> 
>> Could you give an example? I mean, this kinda Sounds perfectly fine and normal behaviour.
>> 
>> I want a hug from someone so I ask for it and maybe get it?

>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (2 days later)
>>> 
>>> It's more feeling guilty for wanting things because expressing that desire is something I would construe as manipulative. I'd be fine asking for a hug, but if it's for a reason deeper than wanting affection -- for instance, as part of an apology which may or may not be sincere -- I'd feel bad for doing so. It's something I'll need to work out for myself.

>>>> **u/SvalbardCaretaker** [+1]  *Mouse Army* (2 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> I still dont know what you mean. I just came out of a clinic where the big message was that expressing needs and desires is kinda good. Supressing or feeling bad about that would have been frowned upon in the clinic.

>>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (2 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh, I absolutely agree -- that's the problem. I'm not saying that what I feel is normal or ideal at all.

> **u/Kishoto** [+5]  (8 hours later)
> 
> Question: I've never really interacted with [the rational wiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page)
> 
> I've mostly interacted with you fine gentlemen/ladies/undefined starfish aliens here. What I want to know is, how reliable is said wiki? 
> 
> Context for this: A friend of mine who's more spiritually and new age minded than I, posted a link to a video by a Leonard Coldwell, which claimed that every (yes, EVERY) cancer could be cured in 2-16 weeks or even less. I looked up the guy and found him on the rational wiki, being torn down as a fraud and whatnot. I'm just curious as to how accurate this is, as I don't have the time (or emotional investment) into doing a proper investigation of investigating someone that perpetrates, or is purported to perpetrate, scams successfully. It's notoriously hard to parse the good data from the bad.

>> **u/electrace** [+7]  (14 hours later)
>> 
>> [Here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1heqvd/you_should_know_about_rational_wiki_site_devoted/) what /r/skeptic had to say about them a bit ago.
>> 
>> Tone in that thread hovers around "Meh" as far as I can tell.
>> 
>> The weird thing? /r/skeptic is *all about* pretty much every topic on rationalwiki. They should be all for it, but the tone is just so condescending for some articles that it *even bothers people in the in-group.*

>>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [+3]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> The top few posts don't like it's tone -- which is a fine criticism -- and then a bazillion posts below whine about "radical feminism".

>>>> **u/electrace** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah... I probably should have mentioned my link shouldn't be considered an endorsement.

>> **u/alexanderwales** [+8]  *Time flies like an arrow* (9 hours later)
>> 
>> [Their page on Eliezer Yudkowsky](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky) has not made me a believer in their impartiality, kindness, or desire to seek truth. As a consequence I avoid the site.

>>> **u/Kishoto** [+7]  (10 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Ugh. I didn't fully read that page, and I'm not very invested in E.Y either way, but man. Like really? Some of the things they said really seemed childish for all of their fancy wording. I think it was more the overall tone as opposed to the words themselves. It seemed overly critical and opinionated for a wiki attempting to claim that
>>> 
>>> 1. It's a wiki.
>>> 
>>> 2. It's rational.
>>> 
>>> Ugh. -_-

>>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [-1]  (9 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Yudkowsky is a nigh-cult leader with no training and a lot of pontification. Deserves the takedown.

>>>> **u/ArisKatsaris** [+15]  *Sidebar Contender* (9 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Unfairness is okay when it's unfairness towards someone *you* personally dislike, after all. People you dislike 'deserve' the unfairness. /s

>>>>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [-1]  (10 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's not really unfair to cite facts, is it?

>>>>>> **u/ArisKatsaris** [+17]  *Sidebar Contender* (10 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First of all, it can certainly be "unfair" to cite facts, when they're a carefully selected choice of facts, deliberately designed to give an unfair impression, expressed in the worst tone and manner possible, so as to bias you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> E.g. if someone asks you "Who was Martin Luther King, Jr?" and you respond "Some convicted criminal", that would be hilariously unfair to Martin Luther King, even though it's citing the fact that he was convicted by an Alabama court because of the bus boycott.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Secondly, rationalwiki to my experience doesn't give a damn about facts, except when convenient. Specific wrongful facts in their 'LessWrong' article that I pointed out in their discussion page were left uncorrected for months, and all I received was scorn for defending their target of choice - nobody argued that I was *wrong* or that the article was right, they just didn't give a frigging damn. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rationalwikers don't care about *informing* the readers, their purpose is to bias them instead. They'll do that with tone and with scorn and with the occasional fact, yes. (Of course this may be my bias talking. I guess it may be that they're horribly unfair only in regards to the issues that *I* know about, and they're absolutely fine on all the rest.)

>>>>>>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [+1]  (13 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > Secondly, rationalwiki to my experience doesn't give a damn about facts, except when convenient. Specific wrongful facts in their 'LessWrong' article that I pointed out in their discussion page were left uncorrected for months, and all I received was scorn for defending their target of choice - nobody argued that I was wrong or that the article was right, they just didn't give a frigging damn.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > Rationalwikers don't care about informing the readers, their purpose is to bias them instead. They'll do that with tone and with scorn and with the occasional fact, yes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hm. Your name appears in a ton of the talkpage archives. I think it's hard to say that there was no argument -- especially given sections like this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Roko's_basilisk/Archive2#Utilitarianism_-_complete_mess

>>>>>>>> **u/ArisKatsaris** [+6]  *Sidebar Contender* (18 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, given a ton of discussions, as you say, sometimes there indeed are arguments. In many other cases there was only scorn and disinterest in whether I was right or wrong. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> EDIT: And even in the example you gave if you read carefully you'll see that my core objection (that utilitarianism isn't relevant to the article) was not addressed, and the person who responded was engaging in a different discussion (as I mention in the comment there "I'm discussing the article and its validity, and you're discussing decision theory. We two are in two different discussions"). As a result the Utilitarianism section in that page still remains a complete mess, and is still utterly irrelevant in its context. The only point of that section was to drag as many unrelated ideas into that mix and mock them all. What does 'utilitarianism' or 'shut up and multiply' or 'dust specks vs torture' have to do with Roko's basilisk? Nothing at all but by golly if we pretend they do then we can tarnish them by association, and thus bias readers against those ideas too. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If you figure out that the whole point of Rationalwiki is to bias readers in their preferred direction rather than unbias them, then their writing style and editorial choices all make sense.

>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+8]  (10 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > It's not really unfair to cite facts, is it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's about the way you cite said facts. Look at any standard, wikipedia page. Even though pretty much everyone can agree that Adolf Hitler was an asshole, you're never going to see "Adolf Hitler was an asshole" written there. Wiki pages are supposed to be about giving impartial, unbiased information on the topic in question. Which isn't really something that particular page does. While it isn't as overt as you might expect, there's still a clear opinion presented on E.Y and his work by the article itself. Something which shouldn't be present in any self respecting wiki article, let alone a *rational* wiki article.

>>>>>>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [+4]  (13 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > impartial, unbiased information
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why must correct information pretend to be unbiased and opinionless? Does overtly having an opinion or bias make the information less correct?

>>>>>>>> **u/ArisKatsaris** [+4]  *Sidebar Contender* (a day later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > Does overtly having an opinion or bias make the information less correct?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It makes it utterly misleading. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> E.g. I notice that rationalwiki's article on EY completely fails to mention that his ideas on the danger of AI are shared by people like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> By having the article sarcastically say that "no one else had previously noticed" this problem, it conveniently omits the famous and intelligent people that noticed the problem and agreed the problem exists when it was brought to their attention... and thus transforms what ought have been a compliment (Eliezer Yudkowsky helped bring an actual problem to attention) into an insult (Eliezer Yudkowsky is imagining non-existing problems)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It's all about the misrepresentation. Someone can use even truths to deceive and misrepresent.

>>>>>>>>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> > .g. I notice that rationalwiki's article on EY completely fails to mention that his ideas on the danger of AI are shared by people like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Oh really? Can you link it? That's interesting

>>>>>>>>>> **u/ArisKatsaris** [+2]  *Sidebar Contender* (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> http://observer.com/2015/08/stephen-hawking-elon-musk-and-bill-gates-warn-about-artificial-intelligence/
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The phrases out of Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk's mouths in 2014 are the things that EY has been saying.

>>>>>>> **u/MrCogmor** [+2]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > Wiki pages are supposed to be about giving impartial, unbiased information on the topic in question
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not correct. Wikipedia aims to provide impartial and unbiased information but other wikis are not required to share those policies, some wikis such as Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia deliberately provide biased information.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From what I can tell rationalwiki doesn't have a policy of being respectful for those it talks about. The sarcastic humour and snark mocking the cranks and pseudoscience in its articles is probably both deliberate and a significant attraction for it's readers. If you want unbiased information go to Wikipedia.

>>>>>>>> **u/electrace** [+2]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The fact that wikis exist that gives out biased information does not mean that we should use them, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should trust them, which is what I think /u/kishito is asking about.

>> **u/ToaKraka** [+2]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (10 hours later)
>> 
>> Wikis in general lately have been seeming rather untrustworthy. Shenanigans at both Wikipedia and Rational Wiki have been exhaustively documented [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction).

>> **u/MrCogmor** [+2]  (14 hours later)
>> 
>> You shouldn't need rational wiki to tell you the guy is a scam artist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if the guy's faith healing actually worked he wouldn't need to self-promote and would have his pick of wealthy clients.

>>> **u/Kishoto** [+2]  (15 hours later)
>>> 
>>> True. I just was moreso wondering about rational wiki's veracity as opposed to anything else. I didn't have much doubt about Coldwell. I fingered him as a fraud in about 5 seconds, lol.

>> **u/lsparrish** [+1]  (a day later)
>> 
>> I would say, don't trust anything you read there unless you can verify it independently. The site is highly oriented towards a certain type of humor, and if an exaggeration is "funny" enough, it tends to stick around. They follow a rule of SPOV, which has more to do with the snarky point of view, as opposed to skeptical point of view.
>> 
>> That said, it's worth noting that many crazy sounding ideas are in fact crazy.

>> **u/FuzzyCatPotato** [+1]  (9 hours later)
>> 
>> Great on science-related topics, decent on politics-related topics.

> **u/_Zero12_** [+5]  *404: Flair not Funny* (4 hours later)
> 
> I've been lurking here for a while, and I just wanted to say hello, everyone. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Random Question: What music has been on your mind recently?
> 
> For me, I watched 'Annie Get Your Gun' recently, and [There's no Business like Show Business](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lakGIwI9u0) has been what I've whistled as I walk around.

>> **u/Cariyaga** [+6]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (4 hours later)
>> 
>> The Undertale OST (as well as various fanmixes and covers) has generally occupied my mind recently.

>>> **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+1]  (4 hours later)
>>> 
>>> https://play.spotify.com/album/4NNmgTVLPIKDW0fXkuFGJk

>>> **u/None** [+1]  (6 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Explains your flair.  [Here's one /u/Transfuturist sent me around Christmas.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Ow3eqFbLg)

>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Yep! It's my favorite game by far and has been since I played it. It's been pretty impactful on the way I think about things (nearly as much as reading the sequences of Less Wrong was).
>>>> 
>>>> It's pretty inspiring. It pretty well codified how I already felt about some things, and... I feel like it made me a kinder person.

>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (6 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> >It's been pretty impactful on the way I think about things
>>>>> 
>>>>> I only got halfway through the game, but... huh?

>>>>>> **u/blazinghand** [+1]  *Chaos Undivided* (6 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's spoilers for the rest of the game. Basically, without spoiling anything, the game gets deep and interesting and raises many questions.

>>>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (7 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Without going into too much detail (should you decide to play it the rest of the way through), it helped solidify the concept of taking an approach to social situations focused more on reconciliation. The themes of kindness even in the face of those who mean you ill in particular resonated with me, because the game makes it clear that everyone has reasons for why they act the way they do, from common enemies you fight throughout areas (It's said that magic [the way they attack] is their way of expressing themselves, like body language) to those who are fighting you with the intent to do harm.

>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (7 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> How do their intentions or motivations matter if I'm dead?

>>>>>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (7 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I can't answer that without spoiling things that happen late in the game.

>>>>>>>> **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+1]  (9 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are you dead?  If so, how are you posting?

>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+1]  (10 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > How do their intentions or motivations matter if I'm dead?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I mostly agree with this one. You can really only afford mercy when you're not weak. To the point where the other party isn't even a threat to you. Otherwise you'll always run the risk of them hurting you or those you love. I'm very much against letting my enemies live.

>>>>>>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (12 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm personally very close to being a technical pacifist, but I can understand your point here. This is addressed somewhat in game, however; I'm not sure if you played the whole game through or if, like eaturbrainz, you played halfway through it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It can come off as a broken aesop to some people, though, that much I can acknowledge.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+1]  (15 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't played the game, although I plan to once my salt at it beating OoT in the GameFAQS contest wears off a bit. :P

>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (16 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hehehehe. Hopefully it lives up to beating OoT for you, then! I'll freely admit I was one of the ones cackling madly at how salty everyone at GameFAQs got over it :p

>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (23 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I mean, it's fine to let my enemies live.  Of course, doing so implies that I'm alive.  "I die, and in doing so win a 'moral victory' that changes absolutely nothing" is the bad outcome.

>>> **u/_Zero12_** [+1]  *404: Flair not Funny* (8 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I've not played Undertale myself (though I've got plenty of friends who have), but I've definitely heard good things about the OST.

>>>> **u/Cariyaga** [+1]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> It's very worth playing, and pretty cheap ($10 USD). [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTy9v9a7Tmo) is what I usually use as an example of the soundtrack. Unless you're using a computer from '95 you should be able to run it, though if you use Linux there's some screwyness that you would need to go through.

>> **u/ToaKraka** [+2]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (4 hours later)
>> 
>> I've recently been remembering the ludicrously-awesome music of [the *Dynasty Warriors: Gundam* series](http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dynasty-warriors-gundam-3).  
>> Examples: [1](https://youtu.be/Ka4btHjwg3I) [2](https://youtu.be/NWBMLfcPKL4) [3](https://youtu.be/0NgJok1cCak) [4](https://youtu.be/HpBYvBkQv6w) [5](https://youtu.be/zhOFWiK9v5E)

>>> **u/_Zero12_** [+2]  *404: Flair not Funny* (8 hours later)
>>> 
>>> They made one of these for *Gundam?!* That's sweet, I had only heard of the whole series/type of game because of Hyrule Warriors.

>>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+1]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (9 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> They made 3.5 of these for *Gundam*! *DWG1* was somewhat lackluster, in my opinion, but still fun. *2* was pretty good, but had a very irksome inter-character friendship system that relied a lot on random chance. I can't think of any complaints for *3*. (I haven't yet gotten the 3.5^th game in the series, *Reborn*.)
>>>> 
>>>> I have next to zero experience with main-series *Dynasty Warriors* games, but I *think* that the *DWG* series (except, glaringly, *DWG1*) has one very major additional mechanic that makes it better than the main series: the ability to use dash combos infinitely until your boost meter is depleted and must be recharged (or until the ace manages to boost out of your combo). The lack of this (in addition to nigh-impossible one-on-one ace fights) is what really made *DWG1* annoying, in comparison with the other *DWG* games:  
>>>> \- Mash `square` and `triangle`, killing all the grunts around you with a massive combo  
>>>> \- Stop mashing `square` and `triangle`, and wait for your mobile suit to stop swinging its weapon  
>>>> \- Hit `cross` to boost to the next group of grunts  
>>>> \- Repeat  
>>>> While, in *DWG2/3/3.5*, it's like this:  
>>>> \- Mash `square` and `triangle`, killing all the grunts around you with a massive combo  
>>>> \- Hit `cross` and `square` to Dash Attack to/through the next group of grunts  
>>>> \- Hit `cross` to stop the dash combo with an Emergency Dash--or just keep hitting `cross`/`square`/`triangle` to continue the dash combo   
>>>> \- Repeat  
>>>> It's much less repetitive, in my opinion.

>> **u/Charlie___** [+1]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> The VVVVVV soundtrack ( https://souleyedigitalmusic.bandcamp.com/album/pppppp-the-vvvvvv-soundtrack , start at track 4) comes and goes.

>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+1]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (7 hours later)
>> 
>> Sup. I've been listening to [8-bit electro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chkElx3HCHA&feature=youtu.be&t=1) and [Studio Killers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGjHsLnUO1U&list=RDuGjHsLnUO1U)

>>> **u/_Zero12_** [+2]  *404: Flair not Funny* (8 hours later)
>>> 
>>> The 8-bit electro sounds awesome! I'm always looking for some good music to game or code to, and this stuff is just what I need.

>>>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+1]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (9 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> The uploader who put that video up has a lot of stuff you might like then.

>> **u/Kishoto** [+1]  (10 hours later)
>> 
>> I've been listening to pop music at work recently, anywhere from like 2011-Now. Simply because I genuinely enjoy a large portion of the music and, more helpfully, since the songs are so blastedly popular, I know them already. And I find I enjoy songs I know significantly more than songs I don't. As in, I've literally noticed that my enjoyment for Song X has grown as I've grown more familiar with it. It's a thing about me. Also been jamming to a bunch of Taylor Swift, Linkin Park, Boys Like Girls and some other trashy, pop-punk stuff from back in the day like old MCR, All American Rejects, etc.

> **u/eternal-potato** [+5]  *he who vegetates* (15 hours later)
> 
> [El-Ahrairah (Worm)](https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/el-ahrairah-worm.372987/)
> Taylor gets meta power that allows her to perceive what other people's powers do at a glance and immediately gets scouted by Contessa.

>> **u/elevul** [+1]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>> 
>> Yep, very good fic. The author is also surprisingly good at writing fighting scenes, despite his continuous statements of the contrary.

>> **u/Roxolan** [+1]  *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (2 days later)
>> 
>> I like it quite a bit, but I'm disappointed that Taylor got combat utility out of her power too. I came for Taylor the consultant, not Taylor the jedi. 
>> 
>> Combined with her Cauldron contacts, that gives her such a leg up over every canon challenge that things are getting worryingly easy. Hopefully the foreshadowed threats will materialize sooner rather than later.

> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+6]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (an hour later)
> 
> **No knowledge of Log Horizon is required to respond to this post.**
> 
> I'm in the process of writing a Log Horizon fanfic, the basic premise being that the akihabara adventurers figure out a difficult, but feasible way to cross back to the real world.
> 
> Seeing as I'm heavily limiting how often people can cross, I don't need to deal with the full scale of the social fallout. Still, people are going to react to people who vanished from their homes while playing an MMO suddenly returning with functional immortality and fantastic magical powers (not to mention the whole different-species thing.)
> 
> So to pose my question, how would *you* act in that scenario?

>> **u/ulyssessword** [+7]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> I'd consider the economic impacts of magic.  In order of how important things are: 
>> 
>>  - craftable (or easily accessible) reusable magic items
>>  - imported (or rare) reusable magic items
>>  - common single-use magic items
>>  - character abilities
>>  - rare single-use magic items
>> 
>> For each of those sets of magic sources, I'd look for the following effects:
>> 
>>  - magical healing and resurrection (preferably of more than just combat wounds)
>>  - teleportation and other travel spells (preferably safe)
>>  - scrying and other information spells
>>  - infinite energy sources (preferably with high power/weight ratios)
>>  - everyday needs

>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+1]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (5 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the response. Assuming you don't have direct access to any adventurers, how would you try to get access to this information? Just regular blog-trawling, or would you try to make your way to japan yourself?

>>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+3]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I would do blog-trawling, and assume that some business people were doing the real investment and testing.  
>>>> 
>>>> Depending on which magic effects were available/possible, I'd try to invest my money one step away.  (If you see that airliners are going to appear, you don't invest in "shipping/transportation", you invest in "tourism/travel".  Ships got their business displaced, but hotels got a pure boost in business.)
>>>> 
>>>> If [Immovable Rods](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rods.htm#immovableRod) were plentiful and cheap, I'd invest in satellite companies.  If bags of holding were common, I'd invest in things that are only expensive because they need shipping.  If teleportation circles were available, I'd invest in tourism/resort things.

>>>>> **u/Gurkenglas** [+3]  (9 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> (If there's immovable rods, the standard momentum unconservation trick will instantly give you spaceships.)

>>>>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+2]  (10 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yup, rockets would be obsolete pretty much instantly.  Satellites would still be just as useful and a lot cheaper to launch.

>>>>>> **u/elevul** [+1]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > standard momentum unconservation trick
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What's that?

>>>>>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Imagine that you are a very strong person, and you have four immovable rods, one for each hand and foot.  When you press a button on one of them, it locks its position relative to the earth.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Using all four rods and some coordination you can climb them like a ladder.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you are very strong, you can *accelerate* upwards instead of maintaining a steady pace.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you are superhumanly strong, you can just use your arms, and reduce it to two rods instead of four.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you are superhumanly strong and very coordinated, you can use only one rod instead of two by using a "hopping" motion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you replace the person with a machine, then you have a reactionless drive for your spaceship.

>>>>>>>> **u/elevul** [+1]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Damn. That means that with a simple piston and a battery you could have an inter-continental travel system...

>>>>> **u/elevul** [+2]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> > If bags of holding were common, I'd invest in things that are only expensive because they need shipping.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You could also short the Real Estate market, since people wouldn't need big houses or warehouses to store stuff. They could always have it with them in their bag of holding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hell, you could invest in drugs. Bag of Holding + Teleportation: free drug trafficking in industrial quantities.

>> **u/Charlie___** [+7]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> As a physicist, step one would be to get so much grant money that I could swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck. Step two would be to find a volunteer with magic powers.
>> 
>> Clearly "magic" is acting on our universe if it's disappearing people from their homes. What kinds of apparent physical laws can magic violate? Can we track side-effects of magic in the form of light/particles/gravitational waves/nanobots? If so, are there interesting patterns to these side effects that can tell us more about magic? What are magical objects made of at microscopic scales? Can we put magic in a quantum superposition? Does magic respect the lightspeed boundary?

>> **u/OutOfNiceUsernames** [+3]  *fear of last pages* (2 hours later)
>> 
>> Can people travel from meatspace to Elder Tale as well, or does it work only in one direction?
>> 
>> >how would you act in that scenario?
>> 
>> Barring the option of visiting Elder Tale myself, I would be curious about the travellers but also apprehensive of them. Meaning, that I’d be avoiding any direct contact with travelers I don’t know anything about while also trying to evaluate how much the travellers I *did* previously know have changed in personality and moral views. Would try approaching them for cool stories if they turned out to be bros and not homicidal maniacs.

>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+1]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> >Can people travel from meatspace to Elder Tale as well, or does it work only in one direction?
>>> 
>>> Travel is bidirectional. But due to the cost and difficulty, at least during the projected span of the fanfic, travel will mostly be going one-way: from elder tale to the real world, excepting maybe a few reporters and diplomats.

>> **u/Rhamni** [+3]  *Aspiring author* (3 hours later)
>> 
>> As a returning game character: Amass all the power.
>> 
>> As a commoner: Try to get in on the magic. Find out what I can about the returnees. Most likely they have swarms of people who want to serve them. If not, I will be among the first. More likely they will, in which case I'll try to make my way to the game world (If that's possible). Read up on everything about the game, of course.
>> 
>> Also, as a politically active (but unimportant) person, I'd try to get my party to react rationally to all this.

>> **u/PL_TOC** [+3]  (6 hours later)
>> 
>> Is Log Horizon better than Sword Art Online?

>>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+3]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (6 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Immeasurably.

>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (6 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Yes, absolutely. Even children's arc of season two (which people like to hate on because it's slow) is better than any part of SAO.

>>>> **u/PL_TOC** [+2]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks. I really only enjoyed the first arc of SAO, but I still finished the series.

>>> **u/elevul** [+2]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Yep, but they are not really comparable. SAO is an emotional Power Fantasy, Log Horizon is a relatively rational one, with a lot of awesome tactics.

>> **u/Anderkent** [+5]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> Probably assume I'm being pranked, then if convinced that it's not a prank I'd guess I'm hallucinating (probably easily solved with a camera and a call to a third party), then probably ask about how I would go about getting magical power and immortality, and do that.

>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+3]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> To clarify, you're not seeing this yourself-- it would be happening in Japan, and heavily covered by international media. As for gaining magical power and immortality, well, have you watched LH?
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the response, though.

>>>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+5]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (4 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Flock to Japan, attempt to barter with immortals for fantastic magical powers.

>>>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+3]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (4 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> You're right, I'll probably have to account for a sharp spike in tourism.

>>>>>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+3]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (4 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also if we were a powerful person for example, they might be willing to exert... influence both legal and illegal in order to bend this immortal to their will. "Oh your family is quite safe I assure you, and they will remain so, so long as you take my... 'suggestions' into account. And look at that, your dream job just opened up. Isn't it nice to work for me?". Gang leaders, very rich people, heads of state, all might well make an attempt if the magic turns out to be teachable to vanilla humans. A few might try regardless before it become clear that it isn't teachable.

>>>>>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (5 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [LN Spoilers ](#s "Normal people (previously NPCs) are subject to effectively the same rules adventurers. They can learn magic by themselves if they feel like it, it's just that they're not immortal like adventurers and their xp gain is slower, so grinding is risky and more tedious. That being said, magic is fairly limited-- it's mostly just the same stuff that was already in the game.")
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That being said, the point that people would try to influence immortals by threatening heir families is a good one-- I'll definitely have to address that.

>>>>>>>> **u/vakusdrake** [+3]  (12 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Even if for vanilla humans the magic isn't great, the information will still get out onto the internet, and a massive number of people will learn it just for the novelty even if they're only able to do cantrips.

>>>>>>>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (13 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Well, you have to take down monsters (or players) to gain XP, though, so it'll get a little difficult to do that on earth :P

>>>>>>>>>> **u/vakusdrake** [+3]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Right but even if they can only cast cantrips, magic is just so insanely novel that everyone and their mother will want to learn how to cast a cantrip or whatever. Of course the obvious implications of this will be a massive uptick in people being killed for witchcraft in certain countries.

>>>>>>>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+2]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Glad to be of help.

>>>>>>>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+2]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Oh, and there is also the fact that Japan is in the rather unenviable geopolitical position of having no army and having just come into 'possession' of a unique and extremely important resource. China and America ect might exert pressure.

>>>>>>>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Considering that the "resource" is held by an organized group of Japanese adventurers in another dimension that also happen to be immortal, I don't think Japan has a whole lot to fear :P
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >China and America ect might exert pressure.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I probably should have other countries bargaining to get the adventurers to spread the technology to the other regions, admittedly.

>> **u/Kishoto** [+2]  (10 hours later)
>> 
>> I'm a bit late here, but who am *I* in the scenario? Am I one of the fantasy adventurers suddenly back in the real world? Or am I an average person at home who sees news of said adventures of the real world? Or am I, say, a family member of said adventurer?
>> 
>> I'm not really trying to be pedantic. My answer would just be radically different depending on who I am.

>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+3]  (11 hours later)
>>> 
>>> You are yourself.  
>>> 
>>> You didn't go into the game, you (probably) aren't fantastically rich, you (probably) aren't in Japan, you (probably) don't have a strong personal connection to any of the returnees, etc.

>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+3]  (11 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Hmm...are you sure that's what OP meant?
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway, if that is the case, Knowing myself and my current means, I'd most likely learn about it from the international news. Probably a social media platform of some sort. In which case, I'd be way too late to have any actual, meaningful impact on the situation in general. So I'd move on with my daily life, much as I do now, discuss how jealous I am that some other nerd out there has MMO based powers instead of ME with my equally nerdy friends, and then pray to the God I don't believe in that the people who have more power over the situation (namely the adventurers and the people/agencies that are going to be involved with them) don't do something irredeemably **stupid**.

>>>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+3]  (11 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> >Hmm...are you sure that's what OP meant?
>>>>> 
>>>>> [This comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/4gzsla/d_friday_offtopic_thread/d2ma6wt) was my source:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > To clarify, you're not seeing this yourself-- it would be happening in Japan, and heavily covered by international media. As for gaining magical power and immortality, well, have you watched LH?

>>>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (12 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I did mean that your perspective is as a (mostly) unconnected observer-- you may have knowledge about the game, and you definitely knew about that one time where literally tens of thousands of people dissapeared while playing a game, but you're not directly connected to anyone involved. (Although you probably know a friend of a friend involved-- it affected one in every approximately 7500 people in Japan, mostly people around the ages 15 and 20, and the proportion is probably similar in the US.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your response, by the way.

> **u/ToaKraka** [+7]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (41 minutes later)
> 
> Some stories...
> 
> Recently read for the first time:  
> \- *[Benefits of Old Laws](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11540013)* (*Harry Potter*; 145k words, ongoing): Upon his resurrection, Voldemort regains his sanity, exploits a centuries-old law to avoid prosecution for his past crimes, and seeks to resuscitate the Noble House of Slytherin by adopting Harry as his son.  
> \- *[Crime and Commitment](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11626470)* (*Worm*; 132k words, ongoing): Various changes--the Travelers don't leave Boston, Taylor decides to breed larger insects, etc.  
> \- *[A Propensity for Wrath](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11449804)* (*Worm*; 129k words, ongoing): Taylor gets the power to sense emotions in others and to imbue objects (mostly weapons, armor pieces, and rings) with her own emotions (wrath = explosive force, love = healing, etc.). This has some interesting interactions with Gallant's emotion-sensing power.  
> \- *[Seed](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11450150)* (*Worm*; 207k words, ongoing): Taylor gets Blasto's power, and conducts some very interesting experiments involving clones of Butcher, whose power is a special one in the cycle of shards. Other changes also exist (e.g., Coil and Accord are allies in control of Boston).  
> \- *[Intrepid](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11224198)* (*Worm*; 320k words, ongoing): A story somewhat-confusingly split between the viewpoints of Taylor and her three bullies, of whom each gains a power.
> 
> Recently re-read:  
> \- *[Holly Evans and the Spiral Path](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/4916690)* (*Harry Potter*; 406k words, complete): Fun action with a female Harry.  
> \- *[The Hogwarts Strike Team](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10807718)* (*Harry Potter*; 219k words, dead): Harry and Hermione go back in time in order to thwart Voldemort's failsafes, which made Britain uninhabitable after his death.  
> \- *[Manager](http://archiveofourown.org/works/1536152)* (*Worm*; 219k words, [ongoing](https://forums.spacebattles.com/posts/21698846)): Taylor can mix-and-match powers between people--including herself. (Less interesting than I remembered it from my first reading...)
> 
> Currently re-reading:  
> \- [*The Firebird Trilogy*](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8629685) (*Harry Potter*; 494k words, complete): An AU involving a matriarchal magical society.

>> **u/gabbalis** [+11]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> >  Upon his resurrection, Voldemort regains his sanity, exploits a centuries-old law to avoid prosecution for his past crimes, and seeks to resuscitate the Noble House of Slytherin by adopting Harry as his son.
>> 
>> Hahaha! What!? That must be one heck of a loophole! Now this I gotta see!

>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+8]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> From the second chapter (edited for English):
>>> 
>>> > "In the early 1300s, a potions master tricked several witches to drink a potion that made them lose their bodies. He then proceeded to force their spirits into bodies he created for them--bodies sewn together from animal parts, or so the sources claim.
>>> 
>>> > "However, what is of interest for us is the law made in the aftermath of these occurrences. To help the victims of this madman, a law was created stating that anyone forced from his body could not, after gaining a new body, be hold accountable for what he did before gaining that new body."

>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+3]  (11 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> That's just the sort of batshit crazy loophole that I could see some palm greasing from Lucius Malfoy opening for good ole Voldie.

>> **u/Rhamni** [+7]  *Aspiring author* (3 hours later)
>> 
>> > adopting Harry as his son.
>> 
>> Dumbledore *did* want Harry to have wicked step parents.
>> 
>> ...Or so he said. While pretending to be mad. In a fanfic.
>> 
>> Also, what's wrong with singular they? It's so good.

>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+0]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> The objective of language is communication *without* ambiguity. Pretending that a plural pronoun can refer to a singular object (e.g., "Everyone doffed their hat as the King approached.") is just as *absolutely disgusting* as pretending that a plural verb can agree with a singular object (e.g., "England are expected to beat France in this year's World Cup.").
>>> 
>>> There's no reason to use `they` when better alternatives exist. `It`, `ze`, `he`, `she`--all are *actually singular.*

>>>> **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+14]  (4 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> The singular they is more natural and more commonly accepted than any artificial pronoun like "ze".  The dehumanizing connotations of "it" are unsavory, and "he" and "she" bring us back to the issue of definitive gender.
>>>> 
>>>> Ultimately, prescriptivism and descriptivism are both incomplete - prescriptivism ignores that descriptivism is where rules come from to begin with, while descriptivism ignores that some type of prescriptivism is necessary for anyone to have any idea what the hell you're talking about.  You have fallen into the former fallacy; the only reason that "they" would be considered "a plural pronoun" is because that's how it's used - except that that's *not* how it's used.  The singular they is quite old, was not intended as any kind of political statement, and is invisible to everyone who hasn't politicized the issue.  To the contrary - the attempt to abolish the singular they is a political statement.

>>>> **u/daydev** [+6]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> > Pretending that a plural pronoun can refer to a singular object (e.g., "Everyone doffed their hat as the King approached.") is just as absolutely disgusting as pretending that a plural verb can agree with a singular object
>>>> 
>>>> So thou never usest "you" for second person singular? That would be absolutely disgusting, right?

>>>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+1]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (6 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, the singular `you` is very irksomely ambiguous as well--I sometimes find myself forced to specify `you (plural)` in text conversation. Unfortunately, any alternatives to `you` have been completely squelched into "archaism" status, as you demonstrate, and their revival seems unworkable. On the other hand, `he`, `she`, and `it` are still perfectly acceptable alternatives to the singular `they`, so `they` can still be killed in favor of them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If `thou` is dead and can't feasibly be revived, then `it` is still feebly kicking.

>>>>>> **u/daydev** [+6]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, at least you're consistent, so  props to you for that. From my foreign perspective it seems quite silly to be so vehement about "plural verbs with singular pronouns are reprehensible" considering that modern English mostly does only "lip service" to verb agreement anyway (compared to many other wide-spread languages).

>>>>>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+1]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (7 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'll admit that I spent a fair amount of time studying Latin (for my own amusement) when I was younger, and am rather partial toward the rigid organization of that language--though, really, even Latin has many ambiguities...

>>>> **u/Roxolan** [+6]  *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> People, remember that downvotes are not Disagree buttons. /u/ToaKraka was asked a direct question and answered honestly.

>> **u/scruiser** [+3]  *CYOA* (13 hours later)
>> 
>> Upvoted for Crime and Commitment.  Just read up to the most recent chapter and really enjoyed it.  It starts out looking like a stomp fic but then escalates and enters the cycle of cliffhangers and daring plans that dominates Worm.  Also, an awesome villain that has a power that seems like a joke but can take on heavy-hitters.

>> **u/OutOfNiceUsernames** [+2]  *fear of last pages* (an hour later)
>> 
>> >  Holly Evans and the Spiral Path (Harr
>> 
>> Would recommend Spiral Path also, though with the warning that it is a heavily sexualised story. I’ve been waiting for it to get completed for ages now because I don’t like reading writings in process.

>>> **u/blazinghand** [+4]  *Chaos Undivided* (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> It's well-written, but it gets very weird and very dark. For people who like it, it's very good, but if you find yourself getting uncomfortable at some point, you should probably stop. It's not temporary.

>> **u/FuguofAnotherWorld** [+2]  *Roll the Dice on Fate* (4 hours later)
>> 
>> Definitely rec Seed. I just love the way it deals with her various horrifying creations and the way her shard makes her not realise how fantastically creepy she's being.

>> **u/None** [+2]  (6 hours later)
>> 
>> >  - Holly Evans and the Spiral Path (Harry Potter; 406k words, complete): Fun action with a female Harry.
>> 
>> Clicked for TTGL crossover.  Disappointed.

>> **u/Roxolan** [+2]  *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (10 hours later)
>> 
>> > - Manager (Worm; 219k words, ongoing): Taylor can mix-and-match powers between people--including herself. (Less interesting than I remembered it from my first reading...)
>> 
>> I tried this way back when and never got to the end (and it has since grown immeasurably). The author had let exponentials write him into a corner.
>> 
>> * The Worm-verse has a shitload of powers, and a shitload of people.
>> * In a given person, each combination of powers produces a different result.
>> * Any given combination of powers produces a different result depending on who is carrying it.
>> 
>> And all these things were really cool when Taylor and Tattertale were playing around with 3 or so powers... But as Taylor stole more and more powers, and met more and more allies, the number of possible combinations went through the roof. I'm only willing to read so many pages of people being granted different powers and showing off new effects.

>>> **u/elevul** [+1]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Especially when Taylor herself doesn't use said powers to their full potential.
>>> 
>>> Also, in my headcannon the change in Lung's shard makes no sense. He has always been Escalation as far as I know, not Dragon. The dragon form was a secondary characteristic of the main power.

>>>> **u/Roxolan** [+1]  *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> The dragon contradicts lots of fanon, to be sure, but no canon AFAICT. [Very few of the shards have a canon name](https://www.reddit.com/r/Parahumans/comments/34pagf/shard_names/cqx2kn4) or clearly defined purpose.

>>>>> **u/elevul** [+1]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting. Now that I think about it, would you happen to remember what happened to Lung in canon? I have by now completely forgotten, after dozens and dozens of wormfics...

>>>>>> **u/Roxolan** [+2]  *Head of antimemetiWalmart senior assistant manager* (a day later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> According to the wiki: fought on-screen in the Golden Morning, survived that scene, not referenced since.

>>>>>>> **u/elevul** [+2]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nice. Ironic, considering how many fics just kill him off or wipe away his power in some way or another.

> **u/jkkmilkman** [+2]  (22 minutes later)
> 
> Is anyone here in med school? I'll be applying this summer so if people can share their experiences/tips/etc. that would be much appreciated :)

>> **u/None** [+2]  (4 hours later)
>> 
>> [deleted]

>>> **u/jkkmilkman** [+1]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Yup, out of Atlanta (Georgia Tech). Mostly general questions about how different med schools are vs each other as well as how important things are (e.g, med school choice) for residency matching. Where do you go?

>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> [deleted]

>>>>> **u/jkkmilkman** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hey, I PMed you, thanks!

> **u/hoja_nasredin** [+2]  *Dai-Gurren Brigade* (17 hours later)
> 
> I need to read something about vampires. Anything even slightly logical that is not modern (A definition of modern is no cellphones).
> 
> Anything.
> Pretty please with sugar on top?

>> **u/Cariyaga** [+3]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (18 hours later)
>> 
>> Have you read [Luminosity](http://luminous.elcenia.com/), by Alicorn?

>>> **u/hoja_nasredin** [+2]  *Dai-Gurren Brigade* (23 hours later)
>>> 
>>> not modern.
>>> I read the first 30%  of it.

>>>> **u/elevul** [+0]  *Cyoria Observer* (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> And not completely rational either.

>> **u/MugaSofer** [+3]  (a day later)
>> 
>> I didn't read too much of them, but I recall the Anne Rice vampire books being reasonably rational. They range in historical period.

>> **u/SvalbardCaretaker** [+1]  *Mouse Army* (2 days later)
>> 
>> Try the book thats the Base for the I am legend movie.

> **u/MaybeEliezerMaybeNot** [+4]  */r/rational/4fzj4x* (54 minutes later)
> 
> Today is [Fake Eliezer Fic Day](/r/rational/4fzj4x).

>> **u/gabbalis** [+9]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> Is it though? Or is it merely a Fake Fake Eliezer Fic Day?
>> 
>> I posit that the Real Fake Eliezer Fic Day is in fact tomorrow!

>>> **u/ulyssessword** [+2]  (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> No comment.

> **u/Qwertzcrystal** [+1]  *assume a clever flair* (2 days later)
> 
> I had this idea for a setting or overarching theme for a story. However as it's very unlikely I'll ever write it myself, here it is for you to dissect:
> 
> As we know (I think), a sufficiently advanced civilization could create sentient lifeforms similar to us as in terms of mental aptitude. Be it as simulations or actual lifeforms, doesn't really matter.
> 
> So the protagonist of the story lives in a world where gods exist mainly in the myths of their people, but suddenly there's hint of the existence of gods, maybe through the discovery of magic or bugs in the laws of nature or whatnot.
> 
> A lot of stuff happens and in the end the protagonist is having a chat with (one of) the gods and demands an explanation as to why they would create lifeforms and then leave in all this suffering and inefficient design.
> 
> Answer: Creating worlds where lifeforms just barely passing for sentient develop "naturally", is pretty much the extent of the power of the gods. The gods themselves cannot reproduce except by cloning, which, on a cosmic scale, is a really bad idea. So creating lifeforms, which develop into a higher civilization, which spawns new gods, is their way of reproduction with variety.
> 
> In case of simulated worlds, the resulting new god would probably need to be lifted into the next-higher tier of reality to avoid a Matrioshka effect where the simulation necessarily needs to be smaller in overall processing power, but that's details for the gods to worry about.

>> **u/MultipartiteMind** [+1]  (6 days later)
>> 
>> Nice.  A pleasant extension of the normal rationale for life-seeding; though I've never played it, I'm also reminded of the underlying plot of the Mass Effect game series.

---