scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/6j1r84.md

## [D] Friday Off-Topic Thread

* Author: u/AutoModerator *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/6j1r84/d_friday_offtopic_thread/
* Score: 15

* Created: 2017-06-23T15:07:18

### 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* (an hour later)
> 
> Where does the "furry" art style come from?
> 
> I really like anthropomorphic animals, and my current campaign in D&D features them heavily. The problem is that I want pictures for them, but searching "anthropomorphic wolf" brings up a lot of furry stuff, and it's all an art style that I find extremely aesthetically unpleasing (like a cartoon wolf you might see selling children's cereal, I guess). This probably relates to some subcultural norms that I'm ignorant of, but I find it quite annoying.

>> **u/artifex0** [+10]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> A while back, I worked on some werewolf mods for a couple of games where the point was to make the werewolves look more like natural animals rather than your typical slavering monsters. Unfortunately, finding good, non-creepy reference images was a challenge.  I did come across a few artists on DeviantArt who might have what you're looking for:
>> 
>> http://nimrais.deviantart.com/gallery/
>> 
>> http://darknatasha.deviantart.com/gallery/
>> 
>> http://lhuneart.deviantart.com/gallery/
>> 
>> All three have also linked to works by artists with similar styles in their favorites section.
>> 
>> edit: Browsing a bit on DeviantArt yielded some similar artists who might be worth looking at:
>> 
>> http://nimrais.deviantart.com/gallery/
>> 
>> http://darkicewolf.deviantart.com/gallery/
>> 
>> http://screwbald.deviantart.com/gallery/

>>> **u/sneakpeekbot** [+1]  (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> **Here's a sneak peek of /r/anthro using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/anthro/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!**
>>> 
>>> \#1: ['Nora Redesign' by JECBrush](http://www.deviantart.com/art/Nora-Redesign-629260984) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/anthro/comments/4yksm7/nora_redesign_by_jecbrush/)  
>>> \#2: [Salvage by Ilse Gort](https://cdna2.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/003/095/318/large/ilse-gort-finallowres.jpg?1469615796) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/anthro/comments/5fxw4y/salvage_by_ilse_gort/)  
>>> \#3: [Puss in Boots by Bom Yeon](https://cdna0.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/001/089/684/large/bom-yeon-recovered.jpg?1439831016) | [1 comment](https://np.reddit.com/r/anthro/comments/5he5pt/puss_in_boots_by_bom_yeon/)
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/5lveo6/blacklist/)

>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+10]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (9 hours later)
>> 
>> >Where does the "furry" art style come from?
>> 
>> Personally, I'd think this would come from a combination of anime/the neonatal instinct and body image/self-identity issues. \*
>> 
>> If you look at any piece of furry art, they tend to have
>> 
>> * large heads
>> * large eyes (in proportion to their heads)
>> 
>> These are characteristics humans are ingrained to find "cute." You see them pretty much everywhere in media not deliberately designed to look realistic. Cereal boxes particularly exaggerate this, as they're aimed towards children for whom cute things must be *really* cute, but even looking at American programming like *Archer* or a Seth McFarlane cartoon you can see elements of this.
>> 
>> Combined with the fact that furries are a very visual subculture, and that much of furry art is derivative from sources like Sonic, pokemon, catgirls in anime, whatever, that explains why those traits are so exaggerated.
>> 
>> For a literary comparison, look at the people on royalroadl-- because they're so influenced by translated Chinese xianxia and light novels, many adopt the same style of writing, even if their work isn't, strictly speaking, a fanfic.
>> 
>> Similarly, garish colors are probably inspired by the crazy, colorful hairstyles of anime characters.
>> 
>> But I mentioned another cause, too-- body image/self-identity issues. You probably know that furries are a rather isolated subculture. From other comments in this thread, people get *really* up in arms about them. But as a result of human psychology, group persecution makes it easier to take up a more "us versus them" psychology. As a result, furries are predisposed to be accommodating of members that are also from other minority groups, such as (most notoriously) gay men.
>> 
>> So you have a whole bunch of people who aren't quite comfortable with themselves and with their place in society. And, in keeping with the traditions of the internet, they craft themselves avatars distanced from their mundane real-life selves. Deliberately unrealistic, because a realistic avatar would defeat the point of having an avatar.
>> 
>> And then, even if these people account for only a fraction of the furry population, you hit a self-reinforcing affect with regards to the art: the unrealistic stuff is popular anyways, so versus the extra effort of makin realistic art, artists make unrealistic stuff. Which makes the unrealistic stuff more popular, and so on and so on.
>> 
>> Of course, I may be overthinking this stuff-- maybe furry art is just unrealistic because people feel guilty about fapping to animals.
>> 
>> \* Disclaimer: I'm not actually involved with the furry community, although I've read furry works when they intersect with my other speculative fiction related interests. (ex. the stuff DataPacRat writes.)

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+2]  *Time flies like an arrow* (11 hours later)
>>> 
>>> That's a very helpful analysis, thanks.

>> **u/Cariyaga** [+5]  *Kyubey did nothing wrong* (2 hours later)
>> 
>> Probably from a combination of media common to the subculture -- ie pokemon, sonic, etc.

>> **u/Anderkent** [+2]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> Do you have examples of the kind of art you do like, and the kind you dislike? Is [this](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/76/81/ea/7681eab092b60f6a3336208f8bbbc95f.jpg) what you call the furry style? I can't really imagine this kind of art style on children's cereal, but maybe US cereal have different marketing strategies :P
>> 
>> ([very cartoonish](https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/casey-milne-the-wolf/images/3/30/Female_wolf_or_fox_base_png_by_bluesliver_star-d4czzpn.png/revision/latest?cb=20130305171133) style sounds closer to what you describe, but I don't really see much of that when searching for 'anthropomorphic wolf')
>> 
>> I think a large part of the reason furry porn is popular is that it safely keeps to the far side of the uncanny valley. Drawing things that clearly aren't meant to be people means we don't pick up on the bad proportions etc, and ingest in a more abstract way - which helps stimulate/enables imagination in case of porn, and helps emphasise in case of plot.

>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+3]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (6 hours later)
>>> 
>>> > Is [this](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/76/81/ea/7681eab092b60f6a3336208f8bbbc95f.jpg) what you call the furry style?
>>> 
>>> I would use such a term to describe it, yes.
>>> 
>>> > I can't really imagine this kind of art style on children's cereal
>>> 
>>> It's less-brightly-colored, but I'd say it still falls into the same general category of mediocrity as cereal-mascot art, [*GURPS* art](http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/martialarts/img/cover_lg.jpg), and stereotypical DeviantArt art.

>>>> **u/Anderkent** [+2]  (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I guess I'm so ingrained into this that I can't really think of a different way of picturing anthropomorphised animals! Examples are welcome :P

>>>>> **u/ToaKraka** [+3]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (8 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, let me backpedal...
>>>>> 
>>>>> In my opinion, the vast majority of "anthro" art falls into the uncanny valley. (Compare illustrations for, e.g., [*Redwall*](https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/redwall/images/6/6c/Redwallfeast.jpg) and [*Mistmantle*](https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1439673381l/119146.jpg), which are the only non-uncanny examples of such art that I can think of, but are significantly less anthropomorphic than the norm for the category.) Most anthro art also *happens* to be drawn by mediocre artists, who share the stereotypical cereal-mascot/*GURPS*/DeviantArt style.

>>>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+3]  *Time flies like an arrow* (11 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess "less anthro" is probably the thing that I'm looking for, since *The Wind in the Willows* and *Mouseguard* fit in the same vein of humanistic animals that I find aesthetically pleasing. Thanks for the examples.

>> **u/ToaKraka** [+2]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (3 hours later)
>> 
>> Realistic anthro art does exist; I saw some on DeviantArt, years ago. Unfortunately, however, I cannot produce a link.
>> 
>> IIRC (though I may be misremembering), the high-quality pieces that I saw were labeled, not by the *species* of the character, but by the *name* of the character.

>> **u/neshalchanderman** [+2]  (18 hours later)
>> 
>> Blame Walt Disney and the ubiquity of his creations.
>> 
>> See 'the cute character' excerpt below.
>> 
>> https://www.pinterest.com/explore/disney-style-drawing/
>> 
>> This offers more insight:
>> 
>> http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/why-is-it-so-difficult-to-make-cute-characters-81160.html
>> 
>> Excerpted:
>> 
>> >So what makes a cartoon character cute? You could reduce the answer down to a few basic characteristics: big eyes and head, fluffiness, warmth and chubbiness. “Cuteness is based on the basic proportions of a baby plus the expressions of shyness or coyness,” wrote Preston Blair in Advanced Animation . According to Blair, other cute traits include:
>> 
>> >
>> * Head large in relation to the body.
>> 
>> * Eyes spaced low on the head and usually wide and far apart.
>> 
>> * Fat legs, short and tapering down into small feet for type.
>> 
>> * Tummy bulges—looks well fed.
>> 
>> >But cuteness is far more complex than even Blair’s set of rules; some consider E.T., Yoda and WALL·E to be the epitome of cute, despite their furless, odd appearances. Cuteness and a character’s perceived hugability aren’t always determined by aesthetic appeal. “Cuteness is distinct from beauty,” wrote Natalie Angier for
>> The New York Times . “Beauty attracts admiration and demands a pedestal; cuteness attracts affection and demands a lap.”
>> 
>> >But with any extreme comes another. If a character is too cute and sugary sweet, the audience can develop skepticism. “Cute cuts through all layers of meaning and says, ‘Let’s not worry about complexities, just love me,'” philosopher Denis Dutton told The New York Times . It is for that very reason cuteness stirs uneasiness and sometimes feels cheap.
>> 
>> >After all, the adorable, smiling face of a child can hide the havoc he just wreaked by breaking all of his toys. “Cuteness thus coexists in a dynamic relationship with the perverse,” writes Daniel Harris in his book Cute, Quaint, Hungry And Romantic: The Aesthetics Of Consumerism . You could call this the Gremlin Effect—a character with an underlying creepiness. Troll dolls (which were recently acquired by DreamWorks Animation) and Cabbage Patch Kids are the inexplicable result of this paradox.
>> 
>> >

>> **u/None** [-19]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> [removed]

>>> **u/None** [+15]  (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I feel like saying "people who never grew up" is mean and uncalled for.

>>>> **u/BadGoyWithAGun** [-16]  (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> I mean, we *are* talking about people with an actual sexual fixation towards cartoon characters. Manchildren in the most literal possible sense.

>>>>> **u/Sarkavonsy** [+5]  (6 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeesh, cool your jets. What other people get off to really should not be such a major concern for you.

>>> **u/trekie140** [+8]  (4 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I already knew you were prejudiced since you believe in ["racial realism"](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism), but how can you possibly claim to be a rationalist when you believe in a baseless stereotype like this? All available evidence suggests that a person's sexuality, including fetishes, are something they are born with and cannot be changed. 
>>> 
>>> There is a huge network of support groups for pedophiles endorsed by the government specifically for this reason. They don't believe anyone should have sex with children and any who do are evil, so they need help to deal with their own feelings and educate others about them.

>>>> **u/None** [-17]  (4 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> [removed]

>>>>> **u/None** [+17]  (4 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> [deleted]

>>>>>> **u/None** [-3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>> **u/None** [+15]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [deleted]

>>>>>>>> **u/None** [-7]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+12]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [deleted]

>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [-1]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+4]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> [deleted]

>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+0]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/trekie140** [+6]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I'm getting this right, you innately prefer social groups with different values to engage in violent conflict rather than civil compromise? You fundamentally disagree with the social contract between humans that our society is based around? Isn't that dangerous from your perspective? It means I have as much a right to harm you as you do to me and whoever's values get optimized is decided by violence.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [-2]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/trekie140** [+4]  (7 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allowing people to say and do things that don't harm you or prevent you from saying and doing what you want is surrender?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [-1]  (7 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/trekie140** [+5]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What defines homogeneous when you admit people are inherently unequal due to factors outside of their control? Every demographic, both biological and social, contains diversity.

>>>>>>>>>>> **u/PeridexisErrant** [+2]  *put aside fear for courage, and death for life* (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> > semitic trickery
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully a typo?

>>>>>>>>>>> **u/BoilingLeadBath** [+1]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize *which memeplex* in the vegan / non-vegan struggle has the advantage in an environment of 4th-generation warfare, right?

>>>>>>>>> **u/ShiranaiWakaranai** [+5]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hold on, so you're saying...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If someone does some action, and other people find that action to be revolting and degenerate, that person is at fault and should be made to submit, even by force?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But I'm sure many people find your current actions in this thread to be revolting and degenerate... so by your own logic, shouldn't you be submitting to their will? Shouldn't you be condemned and suppressed?

>>>>> **u/trekie140** [+7]  (6 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> So you don't care whether these people's actions cause you harm in some way or about the circumstances in which they come into existence, you just hate them because they exist? I don't know what value you could be seeking to optimize unless you intrinsically value the suffering of these people.

>>>>>> **u/BadGoyWithAGun** [-4]  (7 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't know how else I can break this down.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Even assuming the predisposition towards sexual degeneracy is natural, there is obviously something about our society that makes it far more prominent than more traditional societies. I don't value their suffering, I value their submission. If we had a saner, more rational society, this could be achieved without suffering, just like it always has been. Instead, we first lie to them that they're our equals, then they suffer upon the realisation that they really aren't. I'd much rather put the truth out there and let society sort it out, without state-enforced toleration or pretence of equality.

>>>>>>> **u/trekie140** [+8]  (9 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So if you don't see this behavior as harmful, unnatural, or violation of some religious doctrine you believe in, what makes it so degenerate that you are compelled to oppose any acceptance of its existence?

> **u/ketura** [+10]  *Organizer* (4 hours later)
> 
> Weekly update on the [hopefully rational](https://docs.google.com/document/d/11QAh61C8gsL-5KbdIy5zx3IN6bv_E9UkHjwMLVQ7LHg/edit?usp=sharing) roguelike [immersive sim](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbyTOAlhRHk) Pokemon Renegade, as well as the associated engine and tools. [Handy discussion links and previous threads here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EUSMDHdRdbvQJii5uoSezbjtvJpxdF6Da8zqvuW42bg/edit?usp=sharing).
> 
> ----
> 
> Pretty decent progress this past week.  I’m in the middle of writing XGEF, which, contrary to some people’s expectations, is not going to be all that big. It basically handles setting up a very bare-bones framework around which an engine can be built, while also providing a few systems related to managing mods. In particular, it will handle the system that takes a set of mods, compares it to the code that it’s modifying, and then performs any alterations that need to happen before compiling them.
> 
> I had thought that this last bit was going to take loads of work, but as it turns out Microsoft has actually done a good job with a library called Roslyn.  Roslyn is the compilation engine that Visual Studio itself uses to compile C# code (as well as Visual Basic, but who’s counting).  Since it itself was written using C# and then subsequently open-sourced, it means that those of us looking to compile C# code on the fly have an extremely powerful tool at our fingertips.
> 
> It’s not just compiling, but it also handles code analysis, which for us is really the important part.  I need to be able to look at the actual symbols that the code represents, and not just the text of the code itself. For instance, here is a symbol graph that Roslyn generated based on the entry point of my test program:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/GadZbhR.png
> 
> The blue nodes are *symbols*, which is to say, the *actual* constructs that I’m worried about manipulating.  The green nodes are the actual code that was typed (read them all left to right to see what the program that was analyzed was), and the grey and white are things like whitespace and other chaff that, while important for actually reading the code, does not affect its meaning.
> 
> This system is *powerful*.  Manipulating only nodes, I could, for instance, load up a mod in Roslyn, search for a blue class node, grab its name, look for that same class name node in the core game symbols, and then just copy-paste. Boom, moddability. 
> 
> (Granted there’s more to it to make the system intuitive, but I was *not* expecting to have this level of progress after like a week’s worth of work.)
> 
> ----
> 
> While discussing this progress on the Discord server, we had a bit of discussion over the minimalistic bare minimum version of a standard Pokemon game.  What I mean by this is, what is the absolute least number of mechanics that one could include to have a simple game still contain the core gameplay loop of Pokemon?
> 
> I can’t remember where I first came across this concept (probably Extra Credits), but I remember the example they gave of the original Super Mario.  You pull Mario down to the barest of bones and what do you have left that’s still fundamentally Mario gameplay?  A block that can move right, jump, and a pit in the ground to jump over.  That’s pretty much it--all the rest (lives, score, time limit, goombas, mushrooms) is simply building off of that corest of mechanics.  
> 
> The conclusion I came to for “what’s the most theoretically minimalistic version of Pokemon” was basically a never-ending string of battles, my argument being that the overworld is really just an excuse to get you from one battle to another.  Pokeballs, however, are still included in this pared-down version, as the game is essentially not just about fighting, but about building a team that fights.  It almost looks like an even more sparse version of Safari Zone: Your options are Fight or Capture, and the game is over when all your current team have been Fight’d to death.
> 
> Why bring this up?  Well, we’ve been trying to hash out where the line needs to be drawn between hidden, compiled, inaccessible game system logic, and exposed, open, freely end-user-changeable moddable files.  This exercise was an effort to try and define that line, but I don’t think it works: Combat and Team-building are certainly core, but neither one is a single all-encompassing system to have a fence built around it, and there are other concepts that are just as crucial that ought not to be meddled with.
> 
> In the end, I’m betting that most systems will be more-or-less hybrid: some bits that can’t change to ensure the stability of the game as a whole, and then some parameters or configurations that are freely moddable (you can’t remove or change the fundamental concept of a Stat, but you can change ATK or DEF or add a new MAGIC stat if you so choose).  However, it will be important to ensure that everything that should be in the walled garden, is.  For every system that we permit to be potentially modified, it increases the complexity of the system as a whole, and introduces what is essentially a random element to the game’s structure.  
> 
> So with that, I leave you with a question:  what is *essential* about Pokemon to you?  What parts could you absolutely not part with if you still wanted to call something a Pokemon game?  On the flip side, what concepts could you absolutely do without?  Any input would greatly help our efforts to map out this territory.
> 
> ----
> 
> If you would like to help contribute, or if you have a question or idea that isn’t suited to comment or PM, then feel free to request access to the /r/PokemonRenegade subreddit.  If you’d prefer real-time interaction, join us [on the #pokengineering channel of the /r/rational Discord server](https://discord.gg/sM99CF3)!

>> **u/gbear605** [+4]  *history’s greatest story* (10 hours later)
>> 
>> I have apparently gotten a very different experience out of pokemon than you have. I play it, primarily not for the battles but for the experience of exploring the world, experiencing the detailed storyline, and seeing the npcs. I just played through the battles to get them over with. Once I unlock repel in a game, I use it constantly. You could get rid of the battles and I'd have just about as much fun. So honestly if you were to get rid of the overworld, you would have gotten rid of the enjoyable part for me.
>> 
>> Maybe that's why Pokemon is so popular, it appeals to different people for different reasons - the collecting, the battling, and the exploring.

>>> **u/ketura** [+3]  *Organizer* (11 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Yeah, I was mostly attempting to identify the *mechanical* reasons that one might be attracted to the game--after all, I'm trying to identify what systems ought to exist at a core, unchangeable level. Story and setting are things that were probably the primary reason that the games were so successful, but it's not something that I can enshrine beyond ensuring that dialog, visuals, and NPC interaction are things the game has, which isn't very helpful as a focus. 
>>> 
>>> I can certainly respect the multi-group attractiveness of the formula, it brings to mind the four player archetypes. Rest assured I'm not attempting to change the design at this point, simply trying to organize it. 
>>> 
>>> This entire line of thinking has certainly shed light on the broad appeal of the games, but has been nearly worthless for its original intended purpose. Oh well. You can't force eureka moments, I suppose.

>> **u/rhaps0dy4** [+3]  (16 hours later)
>> 
>> Can a _game_ be irrational? Surely the story parts of the game can, but the playable mechanics? You have a set of rules that define the universe, they are encoded in the game's program.
>> 
>> Ah wait, single-player games are always rational (story notwithstanding). But games where you interact with other characters, if those characters don't have a set of goals, could also be considered irrational. Even though those characters have _rules_ and act according to then, they should then be considered part of the environment, rather than agents. In any case the presence of NPCs can make a game irrational if you care that they have no goals.
>> 
>> EDIT: nevermind, you've thought about this. It's in the linked google doc:
>> 
>> >So, to recap: a rational game does not force the player to perform any actions that violate the agreed role of the player (or player-character), whether that be because all actions within the entire world have been constrained to fit a particular mould or because the role has been broadened enough that all actions possible within the game are reasonably within the bounds of the player role contract.

>>> **u/gbear605** [+3]  *history’s greatest story* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> > You have a set of rules that define the universe, they are encoded in the game's program.
>>> 
>>> A game can also be so complex that the mechanics appear to be irrational even though they technically aren't.

> **u/blazinghand** [+9]  *Chaos Undivided* (an hour later)
> 
> [This](https://www.fastcompany.com/40429419/this-tiny-grocery-store-is-mobile-self-driving-and-run-by-ai) seems high-tech but is in some way a throwback to older food sales logistics systems. Instead of the milkman delivering milk, the grocery-robot will come by and brings food. Probably only cost-effective if lots of people sign on, which is why it worked for milk and might not work for this.
> 
> [An article on the history of cell phone bandwidth allocation](http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f). I have a few signals engineers in my family, so I've heard stories like this. It's always a pain wrestling with regulatory authorities for precious band rights.
> 
> [An article about investment and entrepreneurship in the chicken farming industry.](http://harvestpublicmedia.org/post/gamble-farmers-raise-our-chicken)
> 
> >The big box retailer Costco is building a new chicken processing plant in Fremont, about an hour from Mueller’s farm. The company plans for the plant to slaughter 2 million birds per week. To raise all those chickens, the company is recruiting about 120 farmers to sign on as contract poultry farmers.
> >
> >Mueller wants in. But to do that, he plans to take out a massive $2 million loan to finance the construction of four chicken barns.
> >
> >As pork and poultry production grows in the U.S., this is an increasingly common arrangement. Farmers sign multi-million dollar deals to do business with big corporations. The company provides animals and feed. The farmer builds the barns and cares for the animals. It requires a major investment from the farmers who enter into the agreement and hope the investment will pay off.
> 
> Warhammer 40k's 8th edition is out! I had a chance to play a game last week with my Ork army at my local game store [(battle report link)](http://www.40konline.com/index.php?topic=230288.0). Any other 40k players in the house? What about in the SF Bay Area?

>> **u/callmebrotherg** [+5]  *now posting as /u/callmesalticidae* (7 hours later)
>> 
>> I used to play WH40k, but then I moved away from any places with other players. 
>> 
>> I'll be moving to the Bay Area soon, though!

>>> **u/blazinghand** [+3]  *Chaos Undivided* (7 hours later)
>>> 
>>> If you end up near Mountain View, we should play sometime. I play with friends from time to time at Game Kastle Mountain View: https://goo.gl/maps/FjDfU6AcsXD2

>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (9 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I used to play 40k, but then realized it guzzled up my limited cash even faster than yugioh did :(

>> **u/buckykat** [+4]  (10 hours later)
>> 
>> > The company provides animals and feed. The farmer builds the barns and cares for the animals. It requires a major investment from the farmers who enter into the agreement and hope the investment will pay off.
>> 
>> Isn't that basically serfdom?

>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+3]  *Pokémon Professor* (18 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Yep! Though it's modern capitalistic serfdom, so no matter how shitty the deal, it's still their choice to take it, which is... better?
>>> 
>>> Great Last Week Tonight video on it:
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9wHzt6gBgI

>>>> **u/buckykat** [+3]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> > Though it's modern capitalistic serfdom, so no matter how shitty the deal, it's still their choice to take it
>>>> 
>>>> Capitalist transactions are always so Voluntary®

>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> >Yep! Though it's modern capitalistic serfdom, so no matter how shitty the deal, it's still their choice to take it, which is... better?
>>>> 
>>>> I have half a mind to temp-ban you for even the uncertainty that this is equivalently bad to old-fashioned serfdom ;-).
>>>> 
>>>> (The lack of mod flair means I have no such mind and the threat is rubbish, actually.)

>>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+1]  *Pokémon Professor* (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I kind of see it like comparing the wealthy of 2000 years ago to the poor of today.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sure, I'd rather be a poor person living in the USA today than a rich merchant in an age before vaccines and smart phones, but I'm only saying that because I know what those things are. It's not simplistically arguable to me that the poor person today is *happier* than the rich merchant of that age.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Serfs of the old-fashioned sort were almost certainly worse-off than modern chicken farmers, but relative to their time and culture, they're probably about equally unhappy with the circumstances of their job. At least modern chicken farmers don't have to worry about being drafted into makeshift armies to fight off roving bandits or other feudal lords.

>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Personally I think material wealth and personal freedom of action are mostly orthogonal axes in this instance.  A modern chicken farmer doesn't *have* to be a contractor in hock to their buyer.

>>>>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+1]  *Pokémon Professor* (a day later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In the literal sense of the word, you're right.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In the realistic examination of human thought and behavior, career changes are hard and often times go against people's innate sense of identity or purpose.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Like, I'm a therapist. Therapy does not pay well unless you primarily work with wealthy clients. Which means that if you want to help the less fortunate, you have to rely on insurance companies, which means you have to be okay with an industry pay model that was developed about 40 years ago and hasn't changed since. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, I could give up what I believe and care about and say fuck it (more and more therapists are doing exactly this as the cost of living and inflation continue to make the amount insurance pays inadequate) but many don't because a career change seems infeasible to them or because for whatever reason they really care about helping the underprivileged. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Chicken farmers are in a similar situation but have it way, way worse. And for whatever reason, a lot of them can't realistically just change the course of their life and stop being a chicken farmer to go to school for plumbing or programming or whatever.

>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > Chicken farmers are in a similar situation but have it way, way worse. And for whatever reason, a lot of them can't realistically just change the course of their life and stop being a chicken farmer to go to school for plumbing or programming or whatever.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> No, I meant that they could unite together, fight the buyers, and win better conditions for themselves.  If migrant tomato pickers in Immokalee can do it, so damn well can chicken farmers.

>>>>>>>>> **u/blazinghand** [+1]  *Chaos Undivided* (a day later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This is plausible but also very difficult.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Everything is difficult, but some things work despite the difficulty.

>>>>>>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+1]  *Pokémon Professor* (a day later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ah, I see. Did you watch the Last Week Tonight video? It goes into the issue with a bit more detail.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I'll go watch that!

>>> **u/blazinghand** [+2]  *Chaos Undivided* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> There are some pretty serious problems with the way we finance farming, yeah. Farmers are generally put into bad situations economically and have to leverage really hard in order to make ends meet.

>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Yes, it is.  It's the logical outcome of treating capitalism as a [master](http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html) rather than a servant.

>> **u/GrecklePrime** [+3]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> Just now getting into 40k as in I have my models at home ready to glue and paint. Friend convinced me to give it a try after playing Fantasy for a few months with his Fyreslayers. Orks looked fun but I'm going with some Thousand Son cause they looked interesting. 
>> 
>> Sadly not in the SF area

>> **u/None** [+2]  (4 hours later)
>> 
>> > Warhammer 40k's 8th edition is out! I had a chance to play a game last week with my Ork army at my local game store (battle report link).
>> 
>> WAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
>> 
>> >Any other 40k players in the house?
>> 
>> I own an Imperial Guard army inherited from a friend who used to play, and have been wanting to buy Orkz.  Haven't been able to get them at the nearest game-and-comics store, though, and don't have the time.

>>> **u/blazinghand** [+2]  *Chaos Undivided* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Ah yes, good old Imperial Guard! I have about 700 points of them lying around somewhere. I always thought the seeming hopelessness and high casualty rates (in game at least) of IG made them pretty cool. Also commissars forcing units to pass morale checks, heh.

>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> "My generals need air to make commanding of their flashlight guys!", said the Lord Commander of the Imperial Guard.
>>>> 
>>>> Have you read *The All-Guardsmen Party*?  Watched *If the Emperor Had a Text-to-Speech Device*?
>>>> 
>>>> Oh, and we can't forget Commissar Ciaphas Cain, HERO OF THE IMPERIUM!

> **u/josephwdye** [+10]  *I love you* (2 hours later)
> 
> I'm interested in not being a fat guy anymore. The more I read about the best way to lose weight the more I get confused. What would you suggest for some good science based resources on weight lose?

>> **u/None** [+15]  (4 hours later)
>> 
>> Do cardio, the closer to running the better.  This partly increases base metabolic rate, partly expends calories directly, and *mostly* represses your appetite.  You'll be *really* hungry afterwards the first few times, though, as your body realizes it has to build up the resources to do *that* again.  Weightlifting can help raise base metabolic rate, but it mostly just makes you look good and have an easy time doing physical labor.
>> 
>> Learn to cook healthier.  This isn't nearly as hard or as ascetic as you think it is; you just might not have been *taught*.  For instance, putting lemon juice and the right herbs on things is *just better*: it turns dull steamed vegetables or chopped salads into delightful but extremely healthy meals.  Favor baking, roasting, steaming, and grilling as preparation methods; avoid sauces.  Favor fish, vegetables, and complex carbs like legumes or whole grains over simple carbs.  When wanting something sweet, the right fresh fruit can really hit the spot -- but you have to know how to get *tasty* fresh fruit, which can be hard in some places.
>> 
>> Don't ever get ascetic or make a healthy lifestyle into a punishment.  In a related matter, when the health effects of exercise start to make a real difference, you are going to get horny as all hell (compared to a sedentary lifestyle).  Pleasantly, you're also going to have greater sexual endurance.  Incentives!

>>> **u/gbear605** [+6]  *history’s greatest story* (10 hours later)
>>> 
>>> > Favor fish
>>> 
>>> Chicken is also definitely an improvement over red meat, and you probably shouldn't have fish with every meal for some miscellaneous reasons that I remember reading about but can't actually remember now.

>>>> **u/rhaps0dy4** [+4]  (16 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe that [mercury accumulates in salmon](http://www.livestrong.com/article/139212-information-mercury-wild-salmon/), usually in low enough amounts that eating it kinda-often is alright, but maybe not every meal.

>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> You probably shouldn't be eating animal meat (fowl, fish, or red meat) in every meal anyway.

>>> **u/josephwdye** [+1]  *I love you* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Thanks you for your comment! Im going try and start meal planning and cooking on sundays!

>> **u/DaystarEld** [+10]  *Pokémon Professor* (18 hours later)
>> 
>> I lost weight without any kind of special diet or exercise routine, so just going to list what worked for me in case it helps you too:
>> 
>> 1) Reduce food portions and eat slower. Give yourself more time to feel "satisfied" by a meal, and practice stopping there rather than eating until you're full, or eating past that point before you realize it because your stomach hasn't finished sending you the fullness signals yet. Practice cutting extraneous things first. If you get fast food, don't get fries or a soda. If you eat at a restaurant, don't get an appetizer.
>> 
>> 2) Drink water. Cut out all soda *including diet soda*, but also any fruit juice, which is just liquid sugar. *Water.* Tea and coffee are okay, as long as you don't add sugar or cream. Vegetable juices can be, though pay attention to their sugar content.  Similarly, use more seasonings, less sauces.  Salad dressing should be oil and vinegar based, not creamy. Lots of things can be made tasty with lemon juice and/or salt.
>> 
>> 3) Exercise is *healthy* but it is not necessary to lose weight. It can even be detrimental if it makes it harder for you to limit your food intake. Start by limiting your food intake: if you feel like you're handling it okay, try exercising. If you start snacking more after you do, you're undoing the calorie loss of the exercising. This could still be okay if you're replacing fat with muscle, but it is a slow process and will not be encouraging on the weight scale.
>> 
>> 4) *Use social pressure systems.* Tweet or post your weight every week, if you have twitter or facebook. Yes, it's embarrassing. Still worth it. It's amazing how powerful a motivator it is to get support from friends and family, as well as have that extra voice of embarrassment speak up when you feel the urge to grab a cookie or soda once in awhile but you don't want to end up with a higher weight when you post that week. Shame is a shitty thing to feel, but if you're going to feel it anyway, weaponize it to your advantage.
>> 
>> 5) Most of all, don't get discouraged if you backslide a little every so often. You are going to be undergoing a process, and should not expect yourself to master it immediately. You will fail once in awhile. You will learn from these mistakes. You will get better at recognizing the right balance of food to keep away hunger pains without ever eating beyond the point of fullness.
>> 
>> Good luck!

>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+8]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (9 hours later)
>> 
>> You're going to get a lot of advice, a lot of it contradictory.
>> 
>> So whatever you do, don't let decision paralisis set in-- doing something suboptimal is almost certainly still better than doing nothing. (With the caveat that you shouldn't be injuring yourself.)

>>> **u/josephwdye** [+1]  *I love you* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> I think this is one of best bit of advice I gotten so far. Thank you.

>> **u/adiabatic** [+5]  (14 hours later)
>> 
>> Mostly what /u/eaturbrainz said, but:
>> 
>> - Don't drink your calories. If you want to get drunk, strongly prefer hard liquor, neat, to beer.
>> - I'm OK with strenuous cardio, but I'd worry about high-impact things on your knees and lower-body joints while you're fat. I don't know how fat you are now. You may want to walk at a fast pace (3 MPH) and crank up the incline to something high (10% or higher).
>> - I like lifting weights, too. I'd do that on the days you're not doing cardio work.
>> - I like swimming because it's cardio, but not lower-body.
>> - I prefer something in the vicinity of paleo/keto; /r/paleo and /r/keto can help.
>> - Frozen vegetables are the best thing since sliced bread in the universe of semi-convenience foods sold at supermarkets. Nuke in the microwave, put salt, pepper, and butter on top, and you're done prepping a respectable side of broccoli.
>> - sure, there are lots of fancypants paleo recipes, but my go-to is ground beef cooked in a pan with some random herbs and spices and maybe some cheese sprinkled on top.
>> - [Mark's Daily Apple](http://www.marksdailyapple.com/blog/) is neat.
>> - I find it's a lot easier to not get cravings for sweets and carbs when I'm not eating carbs; that's why I tend to stay away from carbs.
>> - Fake sugar sometimes triggers sugar-and-carbs cravings; you may or may not be vulnerable to this.

>>> **u/None** [+3]  (22 hours later)
>>> 
>>> > Frozen vegetables are the best thing since sliced bread in the universe of semi-convenience foods sold at supermarkets. Nuke in the microwave, put salt, pepper, and butter on top, and you're done prepping a respectable side of broccoli.
>>> 
>>> They sell fresh broccoli in little steamer bags.  Poke hole with fork, microwave, you have broccoli.

>>> **u/sneakpeekbot** [+1]  (14 hours later)
>>> 
>>> **Here's a sneak peek of [/r/Paleo](https://np.reddit.com/r/Paleo) using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Paleo/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!**
>>> 
>>> \#1: [\[Progress Pic\] What 14 months of Paleo did for me: 289.9 lbs to 177.7 lbs](http://i.imgur.com/yJgBISA.png) | [67 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Paleo/comments/58c9zi/progress_pic_what_14_months_of_paleo_did_for_me/)  
>>> \#2: [\[Progress Pic\] Thank you, Paleo. You've changed our lives and I feel young again! (M/49 F/38 Combined weight loss: over 175 lbs in 10 months!)](http://i.imgur.com/tqMk9Dq.png) | [46 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Paleo/comments/4sgylt/progress_pic_thank_you_paleo_youve_changed_our/)  
>>> \#3: [\[Progress Pic\] 5 months of paleo, 85 lbs down](http://imgur.com/QCbnf5d) | [47 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Paleo/comments/4pqc9g/progress_pic_5_months_of_paleo_85_lbs_down/)
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/5lveo6/blacklist/)

>> **u/MagicWeasel** [+5]  *Cheela Astronaut* (10 hours later)
>> 
>> You might be interested in the hacker's diet: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
>> 
>> In general, I would ignore exercise as a contributing factor and focus entirely on diet. I commute to work by bicycle (1 hour total) and that burns a paltry ~300 calories a day (I'm slow!): that's about the calories in a large coke. I don't know about you, but it would be easier for me not to drink a coke than it would to cycle for an hour.

>>> **u/josephwdye** [+3]  *I love you* (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Thanks for sharing! I'm only a little bit into it and already enjoying it.

>> **u/CCC_037** [+2]  (2 days later)
>> 
>> With regards to exercise, I'm told that if you're not panting, you're unlikely to be losing weight from a given exercise. (Exactly at which point you start panting depends on your current fitness level and so forth). You don't want to be so intense that you injure yourself, but you do want it to be at least that difficult.
>> 
>> Also, keep hydrated. Water's easily taken in and just as easily lost - drink as much water as you want. (Dehydration can be nasty).
>> 
>> Thirdly, other people have already talked about diet. Diet is *very* important, and what's mostly important there is portion size. Try cutting back a little on that. Once you're used to the cut-back portions (and your body realises it's not actually starving on the reduced intake), then the cut-back portions will become the new normal. Then cut back just a little again. Rinse and repeat.
>> 
>> ...I hope that's helpful.

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

>>> **u/Anderkent** [+6]  (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> >I know to lose weight, you're trying to maximise "calories out - calories in".
>>> 
>>> This is the quintessence of bad information around there. Calories out > calories in is a *consequence* of successfully doing things that lose weight, not a strategy to lose weight.
>>> 
>>> See also [Scott](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/12/the-physics-diet/)
>>> 
>>> As to how to lose weight - yes, definitely try exercise, yes, definitely try different diets and see if they help. Start cooking for yourself, more as a friction mechanism preventing eating too much, rather than because eating out is particularly unhealthy (unless you fastfood. quit fastfood. also quit sugary things like soda / candy, if you consume regularly).
>>> 
>>> In the end you just have to try things, and hope they work. A dietitian will probably help, in that they should at least prevent you from starving yourself by accident.
>>> 
>>> But if nothing works for 6-12 months, at some point you might have to reevaluate whether it's worth the effort. If you're not mordibly obese, being a bit fat is not really that bad.

>>>> **u/gbear605** [+5]  *history’s greatest story* (10 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> > Calories out > calories in is a consequence of successfully doing things that lose weight, not a strategy to lose weight
>>>> 
>>>> Well yes and no. If a person were to have infinite willpower, then they could eat just enough calories/macronutrients/vitamins/etc. that it's healthy, but still being less than the amount of calories that they burn in a day, then they would wind up losing weight. Of course, people don't have infinite willpower.

>>>>> **u/blazinghand** [+3]  *Chaos Undivided* (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are things you can do to increase your willpower or to make things take less willpower. For example, instead of stopping eating candy and constantly focusing on not grabbing that chocolate bar, you could just remove candy from your house and fill it with healthy food. Now, you can still eat candy if you go get some, but it's easier to eat healthy food and the candy isn't literally right next to you tempting you constantly. Avoiding candy consumption in such a situation now is easier. So there are things you can do, willpower wise!

>>> **u/josephwdye** [+1]  *I love you* (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Thanks you ~

> **u/Dwood15** [+10]  (4 hours later)
> 
> I've been writing a worm x mtg cross. 
> 
> Currently at 21k words or so. It's probably the best Original Content i've ever written.

> **u/rhaps0dy4** [+7]  (6 hours later)
> 
> A few months ago, a Star Wars fanfiction was posted here about Sio Bibble, who regretted having to play along with Palpatine. The latter had some leverage over him. Now, I've been trying to search for this story in the sub, but I've completely failed.
> 
> Did I hallucinate this or does someone else remember this story? Also, do you have the link?

>> **u/ToaKraka** [+6]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (7 hours later)
>> 
>> > Did I hallucinate this or does someone else remember this story?
>> 
>> It sounds familiar to me as well, but I don't have a link, and I didn't download a copy.

> **u/FishNetwork** [+7]  (11 hours later)
> 
> I like guided meditation tapes.  There's a sub genre of guided meditation that uses visualizations like "walk through a garden" or "beach at sunset."
> 
> I've found that these can be neat.  The visualization exercises end up feeling like something between a 'memory palace' and a lucid dream.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of the image-based guided meditation tapes seem to be built around some specific goal like improving public speaking, or dieting, or whatever.
> 
> I'd like to find something that just had the imagery, without any kind of purpose beyond enjoying a cool lucid dream.
> 
> Have other people tried guided meditation?  Any recommendations for good readers?
> 
> And does anyone know of a series that does the visualizations without attaching any specific self improvement goal?

>> **u/None** [+2]  (a day later)
>> 
>>     Unfortunately, most of the image-based guided meditation tapes seem to be built around some specific goal like improving public speaking, or dieting, or whatever.
>> 
>> I'm actually suprised by this. I'd assumed most would focus on religion. My parents made me go to a sunday class that was provided by the local catholic church while I was in high school. This type of exercise was fairly common.
>> 
>> I never did take the exercises seriously though. At the time I already considered myself an apatheist.

>> **u/josephwdye** [+1]  *I love you* (a day later)
>> 
>> I started using headspace a little bit ago and really love it!  I just started on one of courses that does uses visualizations, and find it strange (in a good way). They seem to cut away most of the religious baggage and just leave the mental exercise.

> **u/ToaKraka** [+5]  *https://i.imgur.com/OQGHleQ.png* (55 minutes later)
> 
> Which coins do you consider to be the most pleasing in form? (Note that I'm talking *primarily* about the overall size, shape, weight, and color of a coin, rather than about the designs pressed into each of its faces.)
> 
> As a USAian who has only minimal experience with the coins of other countries, I'd hazard a guess that the plain quarter is my favorite. I'd rate the Sacagawea/presidential dollar coin a little lower—perhaps because I feel offended at the pretension of a mere layer of brass to make the coin look like a gold piece from a fantasy story. I vaguely remember also liking the Anthony dollar coin (basically, a quarter with an undecagon on each face), but it isn't around nowadays.
> 
> The approximately-1-inch size of the coins enumerated above definitely is the size that I like the most. I consider the 1.2-inch half-dollar coin (of which I happen to have controlled a single example for many years) somewhat fantastic (not `cool`, but `unrealistic`) in its largeness, while the 0.7-inch dime is right on the edge of being annoying in its smallness. The nickel seems just a hair too thick for its diameter (diameter ÷ thickness = 11, compared to 14 for the quarter and half-dollar and 13 for the dollar, dime, and penny). I can think of no objection to the penny, other than perhaps its tendency to gain a patina, which can be ugly.
> 
> `<span class="joke">`(This has been an advertisement for *[GURPS Dungeon Fantasy: Treasures 1: Glittering Prizes](http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/dungeonfantasytreasures1)*.)`</span>`

>> **u/Anderkent** [+8]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> I think I like the 1 pound coins ([old](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/nintchdbpict000280063085.jpg?strip=all&w=960), [new](http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/pound-749763.jpg)) probably the most pleasing to handle. However, they're heavy and big, so if you have more than 10 it gets unwieldy.
>> 
>> OTOH why would you have more than 10 coins.

>> **u/HeroOfOldIron** [+4]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> I'm a huge fan of all of the UK's coins, you can arrange them to form the [Royal Coat of Arms.](http://blog.royalmint.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/02.jpg)

>> **u/Charlie___** [+3]  (an hour later)
>> 
>> I liked the Susan B Anthony dollar too. Rarity definitely also played a factor. I also remember liking the mexico 5 and 10 peso coins. [photo](https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/2000-mexico-10-pesos-jpg.347738/)

>> **u/Polycephal_Lee** [+1]  (5 hours later)
>> 
>> The most pleasing form of coin is the bitcoin. Digital, weightless, yet instantly recognizable.

> **u/-main** [+2]  (a day later)
> 
> So, munchkin this: you have a pocket computer. It's kinda like a supercomputer from the 1980s in terms of computation power, but *way* easier to use. Also, it magically sends information to other people's pocket computers. What could you do with said pocket computer to help you win at life? Which specific computations can you perform to lead you to better outcomes?
> 
> What are you doing with your phones, basically? What would you *like* to be doing if there was an app for it? How has your pocket computer improved your life? 
> 
> So far, I've found that having an infinite library in my hand helps with patience and waiting, and that a microphone/camera and data storage helps with memory. Using timers and the stopwatch helps with time sense and short-term memory, and having wikipedia/wolfram helps solve silly debates about known facts. If I ever start a company or otherwise complicate my finaces, it seems that spreadsheets are and always have been the killer app for personal computers in general, but with my current budget having instant access to my debit card amount is enough. 
> 
> But none of these really feels revolutionary. I have a sense of *so much potential* that I'm not taking advantage of. It feels like everything so far has been *small* compared to what could be done. 
> 
> In particular, I think there's potential to try and use it to automate doing-the-math and therefore make the results of actually calculating things out more available. 
> 
> How are you using your pocket computer to be more rational?
> 
> ----
> 
> (Sorry if this isn't off-topic enough.)

>> **u/CCC_037** [+2]  (2 days later)
>> 
>> ...one app that I've noticed the lack of is a calculator that works with arbitrary number bases.
>> 
>> It might be a bit silly - and I've never had *strong* reason to use one - but it's one of the few things that doesn't appear to be on any of the app stores. (Binary, yes; hex, yes; arbitrary base, no).

>>> **u/-main** [+2]  (3 days later)
>>> 
>>> Could be done, pretty easily. Would it be enough of an improvement over how you're currently doing things that you'd noticeably win more, even at very small/unimportant tasks?

>>>> **u/CCC_037** [+2]  (3 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> No. It's mainly for amusement, really.
>>>> 
>>>> I mention it only because it's something I've *noticed* as missing.

>> **u/None** [+2]  (3 days later)
>> 
>> > But none of these really feels revolutionary. I have a sense of so much potential that I'm not taking advantage of. It feels like everything so far has been small compared to what could be done.
>> 
>> Honestly, I want it to be fully programmable by me the user.

>>> **u/-main** [+1]  (3 days later)
>>> 
>>> There's something to be said for coding on the device the code is for. 
>>> 
>>> There are general automation apps for Android and iOS that follow simple instructions. IFTTT and tasker for example. 
>>> 
>>> But I don't think they'd let (you + phone) score higher on an IQ test or win at boardgames, let alone less contrived / artificial tasks... I should probably investigate them further anyway.

>> **u/-main** [+2]  (3 days later)
>> 
>> Ok, reporting some ideas so far (1 day later, talked to ~4ish people on /r/rational briefly, probably 10-15 minutes of mental effort):
>> 
>> Starting with a better definition of the problem: how can a cellphone become a better *mental prosthetic*? How can the always-with-you computer help as a mind-extension?
>> 
>> 1. It can generate random numbers. This is actually an upgrade, as people really struggle to be properly random. Helpful when you need your actions to be *unpredictable* more than anything else. Also works as a tiebreaker/timesaver/introspection tool for hard decisions. 
>> 
>> 2. You can get device-automation apps that let you hook up various tools and apps into custom solutions to whatever problem you're having. Worth investigating, but I'm not sure anything out there has a unix-command-line level of modularity and composability yet. 
>> 
>> 3. When people want to use a computer to mathematically model something, they reach for tools like MatLab/Gnu Octave. I should learn one of these and/or figure out if anyone's shrunk them into a pocket version. This is more about desktop than mobile, though. I doubt I'll have problems to apply it to that also need *quick* thinking. 
>> 
>> 4. I take notes with pictures, drawings, and text, but I should get a diagram editor as well for thinking about things that break down into clearly-defined parts. 
>> 
>> 5. Whenever doing day-to-day tasks I'm uncertain about, I can check against WikiHow. This seems like it could be an effective anti-akrasia weapon: fear of messing things up keeps me from doing so much basic, everyday stuff that it should be embarrassing. 
>> 
>> 6. More willingness to be a dirty winning cheater would lead to actions like looking up strategies for boardgames I play with friends. In fact, more willingness to check strategies against google in general would help. I could get a lot more out of that technique. Same goes for using photos of things as eidetic memory: I should use it more.
>> 
>> I also asked in the [Saturday Munchkinry thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/6j8m0r/d_saturday_munchkinry_thread/djdbv6h/), please take a look at that as well.

> **u/neshalchanderman** [+1]  (18 hours later)
> 
> Any Canadian fans of The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz?
> 
> Take a rational lens to this book and you could create something really interesting.

> **u/HeartwarmingLies** [+1]  (4 days later)
> 
> I'm looking for a story where most of the characters are trope filled idiots and there is just one rational character who points out sane alternatives to trope filled plans. Any suggestions?

> **u/None** [-4]  (35 minutes later)
> 
> So, I did a quick search for this and didn't see anything, so forgive me if this has already been posted.
> 
> Who would you kill if you had the Death Note? Personally, I'd kill every political leaders that advocates or actively harms other people without (rational) reason. So, kkk, alt-right, Kim jong un, etc.

>> **u/blazinghand** [+22]  *Chaos Undivided* (an hour later)
>> 
>> Probably the most moral use of the Death Note would be euthanasia. 
>> 
>> In my home state, California, euthanasia is legal. However, it's still difficult and unpleasant. When my father was dying, he went through the process to acquire the medicine that he could take to end his life. He was worried he would become crippled and in pain, and didn't want that.
>> 
>> The medicine for ending your life is basically a bunch of sleeping pills with some anti-vomiting pills. You take them, fall asleep, and never wake up. However, nobody sells individual sleeping pills in doses that would kill you; you have to have a bunch of them. The procedure the doctors showed us involves crushing a bunch of pills, like 40 of them, into a slurry with water then drinking it. Unpleasant and difficult. Dad never used that option, but he appreciated the control it gave him. He knew he'd never be trapped in a painful body, wishing for death. If it came to it, it would have not been a great time eating those pills. 
>> 
>> The Death Note, however, can provide something better. For example, you could write in it "painless peaceful death" for the person instead of having them do this pill protocol. If it works, you might even be able to write "30 days of healthy life, then painless peaceful death" (it's unclear how much the Death Note controls these things).

>> **u/alexanderwales** [+27]  *Time flies like an arrow* (an hour later)
>> 
>> Killing people for exercising their free speech is a violation of fundamental principles of Western civilization and represents a major defection from what I would have hoped would be our shared values. *Openly declaring* that you would kill people for what they advocate is incredibly stupid because you're signaling to them that they should defect against you (more than they already have).

>>> **u/Iconochasm** [+7]  (8 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I saw this when it was the first comment, and didn't reply.  But if I had, it would have been: "I would kill everyone who would use the Death Note to kill their political opponents."

>>> **u/Polycephal_Lee** [+2]  (5 hours later)
>>> 
>>> He didn't say he'd kill people who talked, he said he killed people who actively harm other people without a rational reason.

>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+2]  *Time flies like an arrow* (6 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> > political leaders that advocates or
>>>> 
>>>> What do you think advocacy is?

>>>>> **u/Polycephal_Lee** [+2]  (6 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ahh, distinguishment noted.

>>> **u/None** [+2]  (an hour later)
>>> 
>>> It's not so much killing them for disagreeing with me, it's more destroying organizations that actively support damaging and/or killing other people

>>>> **u/blazinghand** [+24]  *Chaos Undivided* (an hour later)
>>>> 
>>>> > It's not so much killing them for disagreeing with me, it's more destroying organizations that actively support damaging and/or killing other people IN MY OPINION
>>>> 
>>>> fixed that for you, maybe you can see why this is not generalizable. After all, [already some people defect, and we must not add fuel to the fire](http://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395):
>>>> 
>>>> >To be clear, if the doctors thought there was any way he might make it, I would have taken that chance. I truly would have put myself through anything. What I came to accept was the fact that I would never get to be this little guy’s mother—that if we came to term, he would likely live a very short time until he choked and died, if he even made it that far. This was a no-go for me. I couldn’t put him through that suffering when we had the option to minimize his pain as much as possible.
>>>> >
>>>> >**So you’re going to Colorado.**
>>>> >
>>>> >There are a few doctors in the country—four of them, you interviewed one of them—who will do this. But my doctor had previously referred patients to Dr. Hern, who’s in Boulder. He’s this 78-year-old man who’s been doing this for decades, who developed a lot of the abortion procedures that we know to be the most safe. He’s had 37,000 patients and he’s never lost anyone. And he’s a zealot, but he has to be. There are websites dedicated to offering money to kill him; his practice has four layers of bulletproof glass. They’ve been shot at. He was there during the *Roe v. Wade* decision. He’s been through it all. And the only other peer he had at his level was Dr. Tiller, who was killed in 2009.
>>>> 
>>>> They're talking about [George Tiller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller), a doctor who provided abortions and who was [shot in the head while he was working as an usher at his church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller#Assassination_of_George_Tiller_in_May_2009). The asshole who shot him probably had reasoning similar to yours. 
>>>> 
>>>> America relies on people *not* doing this. Peace between disagreeing people, even if you think the others are killing people. We lean on, value and believe in discourse, debate, and speech as a way to resolve our differences.

>>>> **u/Anderkent** [+10]  (an hour later)
>>>> 
>>>> There are no words for how much NOPE this deserves.
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you think you can tell the difference between organizations that actively support damaging and or killing other people?
>>>> Pretty much every organisation supports damaging people to some degree. Life is tradeoffs.
>>>> 
>>>> Not to mention everyone would *freak out* about this, and pretty much everyone would support damaging/killing *you* for the vigilante killings. Therefore now everyone else is fair game for your death note?

>>> **u/None** [+2]  (4 hours later)
>>> 
>>> > Killing people for exercising their free speech is a violation of fundamental principles of Western civilization and represents a major defection from what I would have hoped would be our shared values.
>>> 
>>> Really?  And can we justify "free speech" in terms a little closer to the ontological fundamentals?
>>> 
>>> That's not to say I think we can't.  I think the basic justification for free speech is freedom of conscience and freedom of inference: the freedom to acquire, share, and act upon one's own model of the world.  The problem is, speech and an earnestly believed model of the world often fail to coincide.
>>> 
>>> >Openly declaring that you would kill people for what they advocate is incredibly stupid because you're signaling to them that they should defect against you (more than they already have).
>>> 
>>> If there are no principles you'll fight for, you have no principles.  Sorry, but liberalism and pacifism can't be bedfellows.  Pick one and only one.

>>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+10]  *Time flies like an arrow* (5 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> There are principles that I would fight for, it's just that people thinking or saying the wrong things is (mostly) a situation that needs to be reacted to with talking, not with killing. Exceptions might be made for inciting violence, defamation, etc., but those are nothing new in the realm of free speech debates.

>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I *mostly* agree, but I also think that, to some degree, deliberately speaking in bad faith ought to be more restricted, at least in a public sphere of mass broadcast.  In specific, I'd like to have things like basic fact-checking and hate-speech restrictions written into the law regarding mass media.  I think that many countries have hate-speech laws which form a decent starting point: they don't seem to have collapsed free social discourse despite banning, for instance, Holocaust denial.

>>>>>> **u/CCC_037** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >  In specific, I'd like to have things like basic fact-checking and hate-speech restrictions written into the law regarding mass media.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If I'm ambushed by a reporter while walking down the road for a "man-on-the-street" viewpoint on some issue, would I be legally required to do a bit of quick research before answering questions?

>> **u/PM_ME_EXOTIC_FROGS** [+12]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> Oh, you mean my outcome pump that requires a human sacrifice?
>> 
>> Yeah, gonna use that for science, sensibly allocating world leadership positions, and combating existential risk.

>> **u/None** [+3]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> This is a good question that has generated good discussion, don't down vote it because you disagree with the OP. The downvote button is not a disagree button.

>>> **u/alexanderwales** [+14]  *Time flies like an arrow* (4 hours later)
>>> 
>>> I downvoted it because I think it's needlessly and carelessly harmful to a culture of civil discourse.

>>>> **u/AmeteurOpinions** [+1]  *Finally, everyone was working together.* (12 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Sadly I have to agree with you. The thread didn't have to turn out the way it did, but it did, and so there's only one response to have.

>> **u/None** [+2]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> [deleted]

>>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (10 hours later)
>>> 
>>> >I'm pretty sure it would be ethical to go back in time and kill Hitler
>>> 
>>> I'm not convinced of that, actually. If you kill hitler, let's say you save a few million people who would have otherwise have died. But then, under the butterfly princinple, there would be an incredibly low chance, for any conception, that any specific sperm reaches an egg. That means there would only be a 2^-48 (24 chromosomes, two parents) chance of that sperm having the same chromosomes in the altered timeline as the original. (A little better if you're inbred.) That's would effectively mean that every single person created after the divergence point would be a different person, killing the original timeline's version. So to save a few million people, you kill billions. Really, this isn't just limited to killing hitler-- any timetravel would do this, assuming things are actually "changed."
>>> 
>>> Now, you'd get billions of *new* people to replace the dead ones, but ethics really starts to break down if you try to assign moral value to people who don't actually exist yet, so from the perspective of a pre-timetravel person, it would be unethical to timetravel, just as a post-timetravel person would fine it unethical to not timetravel.

>>> **u/sir_pirriplin** [+1]  (6 hours later)
>>> 
>>> The targets would be acceptable up to the point they realize they are all dying of mysterious causes. Then the lists will become hopelessly politicized.

>>>> **u/DaystarEld** [+1]  *Pokémon Professor* (19 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Death Note allows you to specify how people die. So that's useful if we're taking the hypothetical seriously.

>> **u/ShiranaiWakaranai** [+2]  (15 hours later)
>> 
>> I'm interested in the potential of the Death Note as a positive mind control device. After all, you can write about their actions before death.
>> 
>> So for example, you can write "X devoted the rest of his life to researching a cure for cancer, advancing the study as much as he possibly could, then died." Since X would be mind controlled, their emotions would be blunted and they would focus solely on research, allowing it to advance far more rapidly than if the Death Note wasn't used.
>> 
>> So I would kill volunteers. Or rather, I would get them to kill themselves. Write their own names in the Death Note along with the  conditions of death, allowing themselves to single-mindedly focus on solving one particular world problem or another and use their abilities to their limit.

>> **u/Kishoto** [+1]  (8 hours later)
>> 
>> [I asked something similar a few months back. Peruse at your leisure.](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/619fo1/d_friday_offtopic_thread/dfcxrvu/)

>> **u/None** [-12]  (2 hours later)
>> 
>> [removed]

>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+10]  *We are the Empire.* (3 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Okay, on one hand this whole thread is awful and disturbing and I really don't like the whole "Who do you think deserves to die" dynamic.
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, I would love a story about what would happen if someone started visibly making examples out of political figures of a certain movement and using a magic book to kill them.
>>> 
>>> How would they react? Politicians are being picked off by a threat they can't fight against or defend themselves from; some of them might continue on anyway, out of confidence, ideology or hoping to stay below the killer's notice. They would try to find ways to protect themselves from the killer's power, like maybe looking for ways to militate for their policies from an anonymous position (if the killer keeps killing off elected official, the government will probably restructure itself to have some sort of anonymous senate). A climate of paranoia would appear, with politicians doing everything they can to protect their identity.
>>> 
>>> Uh.

>>>> **u/Adeen_Dragon** [+2]  (4 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Amusingly terrible.

>>>> **u/CCC_037** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> Then you get the politician who *deliberately* becomes a martyr to the cause. Who dares the "killer" to kill him on national TV, who rallies up crowds of supporters, with cries of "We Will Not Be Controlled", and "He can't Kill All Of Us".
>>>> 
>>>> Who takes *advantage* of the fact that people of his opinions are being killed to create a massive Us Vs. Them situation with the "mysterious killer" as "Tham" and everyone else as "us".

>>>> **u/None** [-4]  (4 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> [removed]

>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+9]  *We are the Empire.* (4 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm really doubting your candor, and I'm pretty sure you're just trying shock people, but okay, fair enough.

>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+8]  *We are the Empire.* (5 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Oh come on. You know how this works. The "this is awful and I want no part in this" section of my post was clearly addressed at both you and oakgem217 (though I'm kind of annoyed that you got way more downvotes than him/her, which is kind of underlining your point - and also feeding your troll powers).

>>>>> **u/None** [+0]  (4 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pfffft, look at the guy who thinks materialism and nihilism go together!

>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+8]  *We are the Empire.* (5 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please avoid sneering on r/rational.

>>>>>>> **u/None** [+5]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When even /r/rational thinks he's /r/badphilosophy material, he needs to stop.

>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No, you're kinda missing the point.  The thing about ethical and meta-ethical views is that, unlike "free-floating" metaphysics, they *need* to supervene on the natural/physical world to mean anything at all.  Since morality needs to supervene on the natural while retaining a basic action-guiding nature, the precise nature of the supervenience tightly constrains what morality can logically be.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The upshot is: if you're a nihilist with a materialist metaphysics, you're going to have to be a nihilist with respect to "richer ontologies".  Adding Platonic things which *fail* to supervene on the natural in an action-guiding way completely fails to buy you a morality.

>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+0]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+4]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying anything about sociology.  I'm talking about how things really work.  Remember, social control isn't power.  Knowledge and affordance about *non*human reality is power.  That's the basic lesson of the Enlightenment.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [-1]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> No, idiot.  I'm saying that meta-ethical truth and meta-physical truth (insofar as either is synthetic rather than analytic) are orthogonal matters.

>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I don't believe in the notion of an objective meta-ethical truth given the materialistic-nihilistic ontology
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, materialism is an ontology, nihilism is a view about objective meta-ethical truth.  To claim there is no meta-ethical truth is to say there's no truth about what moral discourse actually refers to, which is logically contradictory.  You can have discourse without a referent (nihilism, error theory), but you can't have no answer about the referent in the presence of discourse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're seriously not very good at logic.  Take lessons.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, nihilism is the belief that there is no object-level ethical truth.

>>> **u/ShiranaiWakaranai** [+3]  (15 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Putting aside the unethical nature of your plan, it is too optimistic.
>>> 
>>> People aren't idiotic enough to not notice only political leaders with leftist views are being killed. And they are going to realize it's not a god doing the killing, since you will almost certainly make errors. They are going to be angry, and want vengeance against the killer (you). 
>>> 
>>> Now, they don't know that it is you specifically doing the killing, but the fact that only political leaders with leftist views are dying strongly suggests that it's someone with rightist views doing the killing. Tensions will run high, and conflicts will break out between left and right. And as more and more leftist leaders die, those conflicts will escalate, eventually becoming a civil war. And a large number of nukes are currently being guarded/controlled by soldiers with leftist views... 
>>> 
>>> So odds are, nuclear war will happen, what's left of society will be in ruins, and you will probably be dead. No happy ending for anyone.

>>> **u/None** [+4]  (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Yeah the fact that your little genocide fantasy doesn't even mention the church shows *exactly* how rational your brand of evil is. Killing people who advocate for *equality*? That's not rational.

>>>> **u/BadGoyWithAGun** [-2]  (2 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> To the contrary, pretending equality is a thing (and forcing others to keep up the pretence) is not rational. The Catechism's ontological correctness may be disputed, but the instrumental value of Church doctrine as it applies to normal people's normal lives can't.
>>>> 
>>>> If anything, I'd also focus on anti-religion activists. This is a serious case of people arguing out of their depth and ignoring dozens of Chesterton's fences. Ontological truth in religion has historically had approximately zero bearing in people's attitudes towards religion - for good reasons.

>>>>> **u/None** [+8]  (3 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> >the instrumental value of Church doctrine as it applies to normal people's normal lives can't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are a self-described fascist who blames all of the western world's ills on "kikes" and wants to kill people who think that racial and gender equality under the law is a net good. You use the term "racial hygiene" unironically. If this is Church doctrine (and may I remind you that the Church worships a Jew who lived in a multicultural empire that happily mixed people up and down the Mediterranean even after adopting Church doctrine), its value in normal people's lives is clearly non-existant. If this isn't Church doctrine, they aren't doing a good enough job of keeping society free from people like you. Either way, it's pretty disputable.

>>>>>> **u/BadGoyWithAGun** [-2]  (3 hours later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >If this is Church doctrine
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's largely orthogonal to Church doctrine. Historically, the Church has been friendly towards people with such views, but it saw no need to either excuse or condemn them from a religious standpoint.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > its value in normal people's lives is clearly non-existant
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To the contrary, I'd argue that social degeneracy and susceptibility to leftism is increased greatly when there is no popular religion.

>>>>>>> **u/None** [+5]  (3 hours later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >Historically, the Church has been friendly towards people with such views
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm not sure the Church has ever been big on "racial hygiene". There were shittons of missionaries and such.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> >social degeneracy and susceptibility to leftism
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ignoring the fact that the Bible (the source of Church doctrine) is leftist as fuck, care to define for the world what you think is "degenerate".

>>>>>>>> **u/BadGoyWithAGun** [-3]  (3 hours later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > I'm not sure the Church has ever been big on "racial hygiene". There were shittons of missionaries and such.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yeah, and they had a very one-way view of the transaction in question. There wasn't any misbreeding or demographic displacement, unless it was Europeans doing the displacing.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> >care to define for the world what you think is "degenerate"
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Misbreeding, sexuality outside the context of marriage and procreation, low societal trust, high time preference, individualism, hedonism, semitism, etc. You get the general idea.

>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+13]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yep, it can be safely said that your knowledge of history is proportionate to your morality: both are lacking in every way. I'm gonna go suck a dude's dick tonight just to spite you.

>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+6]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense. I'll be making someone happy by sucking his dick, and I'll be making myself happy by doing what feels good. You will meanwhile continue to be a miserable fascist.

>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [-4]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I present for your consideration the notion that you have absolutely no fucking idea what it means to let go, and so when confronted with a wild, chaotic and sublime world feel the desperate need to impose an arbitrary order upon it rather than accept that you have no control over the world and never will.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+5]  *We are the Empire.* (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of letting go, you know you don't [*have*](https://xkcd.com/386/) to answer him, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I apologize if I'm misunderstanding the situation, but it looks like you're having an unproductive debate where neither of you are really interested in learning about the other's worldview; BGWAG is *maybe* having fun, and it looks like it just made you angry and miserable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+4]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could reassure you that you've completely misread my emotional state (I had *lots* of fun until he stopped responding), but this is a bit of a thorn in my paw:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Neither of you are really interested in learning about the other's worldview
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean, his worldview is that I'm inherently degenerate. Once you've confirmed that someone will think less of you no matter what you do, what more is there to learn?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+4]  *We are the Empire.* (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly, I think that the game of "Try to prove that a troll on the internet is wrong" is [a very bitter, unhealthy kind of fun](https://xkcd.com/1385/) (if you'll excuse me for linking xkcd again).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (6 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not about proving him wrong. It's about speaking the truth in the hopes that he reevaluates his position. Maybe it is pointless, but maybe it isn't. If I can change one bigot's mind, even if it's just a little bit, or if I can put a chink in the armor their hate provides to them so that some other, better debater opens their eyes later... I think it's worth my time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you haven't answered my question, and I would be much obliged if you did.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+3]  *We are the Empire.* (7 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I took your question as a rhetorical one, with the implied question being "His worldview is about dehumanizing me, why should I hear what he has to say?".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And sure, it's true. I'm not saying you should listen to him, or accept his opinions. I'm saying that, given that you're already both committed to not changing your minds, you may as well skip the debate. All you're achieving is a bitter game of chicken *à la* "Who gets tired of the argument first?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also you're really not going to have anyone reevaluate their position by promising to perform a fellation to spite them, or by telling them how more ethical you are than them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/callmebrotherg** [+6]  *now posting as /u/callmesalticidae* (7 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it does help *me* to see that people disapprove of BGWAG. It's usually just one person any time that he speaks up, but it's usually a *different* person each time, and I've never seen anybody speak up in agreement with him, so I feel reasonably confident that the subreddit doesn't like his views.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If, on the other hand, I regularly failed to see any responses at all and then one day I saw a favorable response, well, I know that /u/eaturbrainz is Jewish, so that'd be at least one data point suggesting that the subreddit wasn't turning into a fascist and anti-semitic hot spot, but I'd still be getting worried about the possibility. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As it is, though, BGWAW is always met with spirited disapproval, which sends a strong (and reassuring) signal to me about this community's overall values.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+7]  *We are the Empire.* (7 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. I meant to write "a bitter game of chicken + value signaling", which is still kinda sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also I'm hitting the point where I'm getting bitter and defensive about arguing that people shouldn't spend hours getting bitter and defensive on the internet. Which is the sort of problem you usually run into when you start playing rational debate police. How distastefully meta.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+3]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > How distastefully meta.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Golden phrase right there.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (7 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Also you're really not going to have anyone reevaluate their position by promising to perform a fellation to spite them, or by telling them how more ethical you are than them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've had my mind changed by both of those things!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But maybe I'm weird.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [-1]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (4 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. I'm not an "omni-hedonist" and I'm not sure what moral suicide even is! Besides, I think I'm way more moral than you are because I am not a racist or a sexist or any of those things. People are people and their inherent worth is not derived from chromosomes or chemicals but from their awareness of the world. Letting go just means "giving up control". The only reason you'd think that was meaningless is because you don't know how to do what I'm talking about. It's the blind spot of fascists.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+0]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >In other words, you're conflating "morality" with "adherence to my worldview", making yourself the most moral by definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. I'm often rude, ungrateful, or selfish. I could be a better person. It's hard, and I'm trying, but I'm not there yet and there's bound to be people who are further along than me. I admire them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >Agreed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please. You think "racial hygiene" is a thing. You judge people based on melatonin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >You seem to be confused. I don't have any actual control here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's what drives you wild. That's why you hate the Jews - because it's easier to believe that someone has taken agency from you than to acknowledge that you wouldn't have had the agency you desire anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >You deserve more and more direct suffering than you'll ever receive for it (again, assuming the materialistic nihilistic ontology)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh no, see you're confused. Nihilism is the rejection of morality and the idea that people "deserve" things. Deserving things implies an order to the world and that's not nihilism at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And speaking of not using euphemisms - telling me that I deserve suffering (and implying that you don't) is saying that you're a better person than me because I don't adhere to your worldview! Talk about self-assurance.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [removed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >There are definitely people and groups of people I judge to be more or less worthy relative to each other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure there's an absolute. You put yourself at the top. Talk about self-assured! And you can't respond to this accusation sent back your way, which really only cements the projection you're up to.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/BadGoyWithAGun** [+0]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing absolute about that, I'm talking about subjective judgements of relative value based on concrete criteria. And I don't keep a leaderboard, because it isn't a fucking game like life is to you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (5 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >I don't keep a leaderboard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You call people who disagree with you degenerates because of your massive self-assurances. You haven't even been able to name an honest flaw about yourself like I have! You rank the shit out of the world one way or another.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > That said, I don't believe in the notion of "inherent worth",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep digging this heresy hole deeper and deeper.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/SevereCircle** [+3]  (9 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > In other words, you're conflating "morality" with "adherence to my worldview", making yourself the most moral by definition. Nice. I wish I was this self-assured.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds dangerously close to the "that's your opinion" fallacy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+1]  (14 hours later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm late to the party here but, as I read through this interesting string of comments, I simply had to come in and ask something:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think it means to be happy? Like what is true happiness to you? As opposed to simple "hedonism".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you actually want to ask him, ask him by PM.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, he's been banned from the r/rational sub?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, quite firmly.  There was discussion among the mods, and we were going to draw a line rather than ban now.  I'd say he's already crossed the lines worth enforcing in this subthread; I hadn't seen it before.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+4]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, I see. Can't disagree with that decision. I wasn't very involved in the discussion and I don't think I caught all of it, especially since he seemed to enjoy using fancy words to obfuscate his true feelings (something a lot of us here are guilty of) but he seemed to be quite a hateful prick. Pardon my french.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+1]  *We are the Empire.* (3 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Pardon my french. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grmbl grmbl grmbl.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+2]  (3 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, is there an issue with the somewhat stereotyped colloquialism I used?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+1]  *We are the Empire.* (3 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, just kidding.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+1]  (3 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cool :)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/Kishoto** [+2]  (2 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After about 24 hours of exchanging messages, I can confirm this guy isn't just a hateful prick. He's an unbelievably moronic hateful prick that can't back up any of the reasons he uses to justify his views with any sort of actual fact. It's been interesting talking to someone who's on such a completely opposite side of the moral spectrum from myself. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he mostly just slings around fancy words in an attempt to make his hateful rhetoric seem legitimate. He's a white supremacist, anti-Jew bigot that has no good reasons for any of the views he has. And can't give me any supporting facts for why that is. Ugh.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (2 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's ok.  He's going to the special hell.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/CouteauBleu** [+1]  *We are the Empire.* (3 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry to dig up a quasi-dead horse, but I'm not really comfortable seeing you ban someone after you had an extensive, heated political debate with them; especially since you've demonstrated political bias before, and **especially especially** since during said debate you said things like 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You're seriously not very good at logic. Take lessons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and TRIPLE especially when you delete every post he made, even though most of these were no less constructive than your own posts, political opinions aside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that the ban was a result of a mod discussion, but I really wish the whole situation had been handled by u/alexanderwales and/or u/PeridexisErrant, with one of them announcing the ban and officially ending the thread; I don't think you should have put your mod hat at all to close a debate you were part of.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/PeridexisErrant** [+2]  *put aside fear for courage, and death for life* (3 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather let this stay firmly in the past, but with my mod hat on I'll confirm that we all discussed it, decided *not* to ban him, set clear criteria for a ban (basically incitement to violence, dehumanising people, or apologia for violent hate groups), and then *after* that saw new posts that met the criteria for a ban.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I hate using bans, but if that's the cost of not-being-4chan I'll do it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (3 days later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're welcome to message the mods as a group.  We can confirm that we were talking over the option of banning the guy after last Friday's off-topic thread, since he'd basically taken over half the comment volume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What made me pull the trigger *wasn't* his politics.  You *know* that: we would have banned him much, much earlier if it was that.  The trouble was that he directly told a user that their happiness was irrelevant and that things they enjoyed were degenerate.  Once the trigger was pulled, there was group agreement, and if the mod group disagrees, we can reverse the ban.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advocate bad ideas, well, I'll make fun of you to high heaven, but no mod action.  Devalue human lives or happiness, in so many words, deliberately and directly?  Banhammer 40K, in the Emperor's name let none survive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> **u/None** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, if I'd spotted this before, I'd have done this before.

---