37 KiB
[RT][C][HF][TH][NSFW] VEILFALL: Book One A ROUSING REBIRTH (Lewd Magical Girls In Space)
-
Author: u/Ephemeralen *
-
Score: 5
-
Created: 2018-09-26T19:09:55
Post:
Comments:
u/TempAccountIgnorePls [+11] (2 hours later)
I remember being quite put off by an early scene in which a man has sex with his teenage daughter, and the police are portrayed as unambiguous bad guys for arresting him over this.
u/torac [+12] (13 hours later)
Edit: I mixed up part of the timeline of events. See posts below.
Since the author didn’t deign to actually address it, here is a spoilery summary of how I recall that happening, and how it slots into the larger story.
tl;dr: It can be considered a consensual relationship between two adults without one having power over the other.
A large part of the story is about sexual moral edge cases. This is one of the cases where it was intentionally constructed to appear superficially repulsive and clear cut to "normal" morality, with the particulars shifting into moral ambiguity. Note: Ambiguity, not moral rightness.
The protagonist in particular can be considered a hardcore pro-sex fanatic and missionary. In effect, the sexual aspects of every situation, no matter how horrifying, are automatically contextualized into something positive.
The incident itself pretty heavily started off with porn logic. This lessens its impact quite a bit, at least to me. Specifically, >!The father sleepwalks into the daughter’s bed, mistakes her for his dead wife and then has sex with her while remaining unconscious!<. Also, the typical father-daughter relationship paradigma don’t apply here, since a) The daughter is (functionally) an independent adult. b) >!The daughter is a superpowered magical girl, reversing the typical power structures!<. c) >!The daughter is an empath, who coaxes her father into the relationship because she can feel how much it actually means to him despite trying to repress those feelings.!<
The cops were there because >!The magical girl’s mascot society decided to mess with the girl. The cops that came were chosen for seeing themselves as puritanical moral guardians, not as law enforcers. They were also given misleading information.!<
My personal judgement:
!I dislike the porn logic that starts it off, since it lessens how seriously I take it. The whole thing feels kind of fake to me as a result. I also felt uncomfortable when the daughter tried to sort-of seduce her father. (I don’t recall the details.) It felt like she was talking him into something that he didn’t really want, even if it obviously turned out alright for them. Lastly, the cops being effectively parodies didn’t help make it feel more real. It did fit the theme of how the magical girl mascot society impacts the world. Kind of similar to how the witches in PMMM are comical exaggerations of real life things!<
u/DaystarEld [+7] Pokémon Professor (2 days later)
So I just read up to that part of the story, and I think I agree with /u/TempAccountIgnorePls. It definitely trips my "this is presented as okay but objectively shouldn't be" sense.
a) The daughter is (functionally) an independent adult.
In what way? She's 16, so still a minor dependent on him for housing, food, etc.
b) The daughter is a superpowered magical girl, reversing the typical power structures.
She was not yet a magical girl when the relationship formed.
c) The daughter is an empath, who coaxes her father into the relationship because she can feel how much it actually means to him despite trying to repress those feelings.
Same as above. She didn't get her powers until after.
As for the cops, it doesn't really matter why they were there, they still had evidence that a father was having sex with his 16 year old daughter and were written as villains. There's no actual misleading information they were given, other than that she consented, which is not relevant to the law anyway. If a ~35 year old man has sex with a 16 year old girl, it doesn't matter if she consented, it's still statutory rape. That he's her father makes things worse, but it's still a crime that they had evidence was being committed.
Writing them as cruel thugs adds nothing to moral argument and doesn't actually justify the response of the "heroine." Any other cop would have involved child protective services regardless of what the daughter said, and they would have been right to do so. Grooming is a thing that happens in real life to real people.
Don't get me wrong, if I'm viewing the whole thing through porn-logic it totally works. But as rationalfiction, not so much.
u/torac [+1] (2 days later)
Thanks for the response. It’s been a while since I’ve read it and hoped that my recollections were at least better than the non-answer below.
The villain bit is more about how smug they are about it and threaten to put the girl into involuntary life-long confinement if she does not cooperate, as /u/TempAccountIgnorePls has quoted.
Edit: Agreed on the porn logic bit. The whole scenario only worked on porn logic from beginning (sleepwalking) to end.
u/DaystarEld [+2] Pokémon Professor (2 days later)
Yeah, I just edited another couple paragraphs in that addressed that a bit more :)
u/Ephemeralen [+1] (3 days later)
It is presented from the deuteragonist's point of view. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I could say more, but I really don't think there would be any point.
I am curious which of the rationalfic rules you think the novel fails to follow. "it has a highly improbable premise / inciting incident" (which is what I take your use of "porn-logic" here to actually mean) is emphatically not on the list last I checked.
u/DaystarEld [+5] Pokémon Professor (3 days later)
I understand that's the intention, but I'm letting you know that it's not how it came off to me. The fact that the cops are such assholes, so much so that she can telepathically tell, makes it feel like the story is stacking the deck against any moral ambiguity. Like, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time in stories where the author is on a tract. That's what I meant by this being a "sense" that was tripped.
If I read Ayn Rand and the somehow every antagonist's facial features and stance and demeanor pseudo-magically communicates to the characters or readers that they're totally immoral and selfish creatures, then I feel like I'm reading a parable, not a story. The author is constructing strawmen in the place of antagonists to eliminate any chance of moral ambiguity.
If I read Terry Goodkind and a protagonist acts brazenly and with total confidence in situations where there should be some clear hesitation and uncertainty, then they're signalling irrationality. If they make moral decisions with that attitude, they are signalling immorality. When the story rewards these behaviors, it comes off as the author endorsing them.
There's a lot of subtle things that make something feel like an author tract, and it's very subjective, but to me, those chapters lit up the warning signs. I'm going to keep reading, but I wanted to communicate that, on initial read-through, this is the impression the story gave. Her being psychic doesn't matter, because you wrote the cops to be the kind of cops where her being psychic would further eliminate moral ambiguity. It's not the character's perspective that matters, it's the choices of the author in framing situations and characters.
Does that make sense? It may not be what you intended, but it's how it comes off.
I am curious which of the rationalfic rules you think the novel fails to follow. "it has a highly improbable premise / inciting incident" (which is what I take your use of "porn-logic" here to actually mean) is emphatically not on the list last I checked.
I meant that in porn/smut/etc, situations will usually resolve themselves in ways that eliminate moral ambiguity and allow the protagonists to continue enjoying consequence-free sex to continue the sexual fantasy (in the Erogamer this is explicitly an effect of her Ero stat), in a way that rationalfiction should try to avoid, the same way the results of living out a power fantasy should be realistically explored and have moral ambiguity and consequences.
Obviously you're not trying to make this situation "consequence free" since they presumably will have to deal with the whole police and Beacon thing moving forward, but that just sets up a conflict for a plot, it doesn't introduce consequences into the sexual relationship (unless the dad becomes traumatized by all this and runs away from his daughter or something. I'll amend my view on it if that happens, but as of current read-through I'm just letting you know how it comes off to me).
(Also I want to stress that a single "infraction" against rational fiction ideals doesn't automatically make the story not a rational fic, but it's still worth pointing out if that's the goal)
u/TempAccountIgnorePls [+2] (20 hours later)
I wouldn't mind it as much if it were presented as a morally ambiguous situation (or at least acknowledged why some might see it as such), but it's presented as this poor innocent girl and her loving father being preyed on by a gang of bloodthirsty bullies.
u/Ephemeralen [+2] (5 hours later)
This is one of those statements that is technically true but massively misleading, IMO.
u/TempAccountIgnorePls [+2] (12 hours later)
How so? It's been a while since I read it, maybe I missed something
u/Anderkent [+3] (13 hours later)
It's not exactly an objective narrator, and the police aren't exactly blamed or portrayed badly for arresting him. They are shown as deceptive and not really acting to protect the supposed victim, but that's not really surprising or out of line.
u/TempAccountIgnorePls [+3] (19 hours later)
The narrator can literally read minds. Her objectivity is a moot point, because she knows exactly what they're thinking and feeling, and it's quite unambiguously bad.
"That's right," Officer Calton said smugly. "Your daddy's going away for a long time. And you, you're gonna cooperate and say whatever we damn well tell you to say, or I might start suggesting that a girl in your position ought to be placed in intensive psychiatric care. Clearly you've been damaged by your experience, honey. You're gonna play ball with us or you're gonna spend the rest of your life strapped to a bed. Your choice."
I mean come on.
u/Anderkent [+1] (20 hours later)
Would that bother you if it was addressed at a 'victim'/co-conspirator of a different crime? Bad cop is a cliche, sure, but it's usually fine.
u/TempAccountIgnorePls [+3] (21 hours later)
A moment ago you said the police weren't "blamed or portrayed badly for arresting him".
But to answer your question, if the other crime were dealt with with the same amount of tact used here, then yes, I would be quite bothered. Usually the bad cop functions as a commentary on the failings of the justice system. Here, they act as a strawman for the idea that you shouldn't have sex with your sixteen year old daughter.
u/Anderkent [+3] (22 hours later)
I don't think the story ever suggests that the police were bad for arresting him. I guess I look at their after-arrest treatment of her and the father as a separate thing - there they are portrayed badly, but it's a common and grounded in reality trope that the police really aren't doing there job to help you, they have their own goals.
Here, they act as a strawman for the idea that you shouldn't have sex with your sixteen year old daughter.
I guess I never got that impression. It feels like a very false dillema. Of course you shouldn't have sex with your sixteen year old daughter (though if you're being mind-whammied into it, I'm not sure where moral responsibility lies). At the same time the sex offender system is insane, and will happily destroy lives of the 'offenders' even when the relation was fully consensual and moral (remember when teenagers exchanging selfies were charged with child porn possession?).
u/TempAccountIgnorePls [+2] (22 hours later)
I wouldn't put teenagers consensually exchanging selfies, and a middle-aged man allowing himself to be seduced by his teenage daughter in the same category, regardless of extenuating circumstances. If it's trying to comment on the sex offenders registry, it's chosen a really poor hill to die on
u/ArisKatsaris [+6] Sidebar Contender (a day later)
It's been a while since I read it but I think the story acknowledges at some point that in the vast majority of incest cases, the police would have been right to act and would have been preventing abuse.
If the author is choosing a 'hill to die on', I think it's not about incest, but um, against the rigidity of rule-systems? I'm actually a rule-utilitarian, so I'd probably oppose him on this - rigid rules can seem more tyrannical, but they can also protect against corruption or self-justifications for the sake of personal convenience.
But I'd guess I see Ephemeral as more a pure consequentialist, where he wants each individual case treated on its own merits, not any hard-set rules.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+2] Dai-Gurren Brigade (a day later)
Seems a case of spherical chickens. Would be a great model to work with, now let's consider how actual reality actually works though.
u/Anderkent [+3] (23 hours later)
So I actually appreciated that both sides were obviously in the wrong, rather than it being just the police. Bah. I guess we just received the text differently, it didn't seem like it's dying on any hill to me at all.
u/DaystarEld [+2] Pokémon Professor (2 days later)
I just read it, up to the end of that whole section. Definitely did not come off as "both sides in the wrong" by the text. I actually see her as on the path to villainy after she murdered the other magical girl, who was just being used by Beacon and thought she was helping. (Her coming back in a year doesn't actually help much, if someone killed you for just a year you would probably consider it an act akin to kidnapping and imprisonment at the very least)
I don't know if /u/Ephemeralen intended that result, but that's how Eelesia comes off, and if the rest of the story treats her as a heroine, it's going to be hard for me to stay invested. It doesn't even really matter how oppressively rule-following Beacon is, if the character's response to people doing what's 99.99% of the time the right thing to do, particularly when they have no reason to think it's an exception, is to treat them like enemies, that character is just as much a danger to sane people everywhere, if not moreso.
u/water125 [+1] (2 hours later)
The one instance cops aren't bastards, and they're portrayed as bad guys. This combined with the association with Slate Star has me wary.
u/FriendlyAnnatar [+3] The Greater Good (3 hours later)
How is it associated with SlateStarCodex?
u/water125 [-4] (3 hours later)
I'm not sure how close the association is, honestly, but if you follow the link to the previous rational thread on this topic, which is in OP's comment, then you find quick links to SlateStar. I might still read it and give it a chance, but I'm wary of even tenuous connections. Plus, the author used the phrase "Politics is the mind-killer" to partially dismiss concerns someone had over a part of the story, which is, frankly, the most privileged position one can take. The people that can afford to dismiss politics so completely are not the ones that the status quo hurts.
u/somerandomguy2008 [+17] (4 hours later)
I don't know the context in which the phrase "politics is the mind-killer" was used that you're referring to, but if it was used dismissively, it was likely misused. The article where the phrase was popularized never said you shouldn't think about politics, only that political opinions are especially prone to biased thinking and that, as such, you shouldn't use political opinions as examples when trying to teach/learn how to think rationally. As the article says,
Politics is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it's a terrible domain in which to learn rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational.
Out of curiosity, is there anything in particular that makes you wary of SlateStarCodex? I'm a little surprised to see someone who presumably likes rational fiction that thinks SlateStarCodex ought to be avoided. In particular, "I'm wary of even tenuous connections" seems odd. This whole subreddit is at least a tenuous connection.
u/Izeinwinter [+10] (16 hours later)
Slatestarcodex suffers from a problem the owner of the blog himself has discussed. It is a gathering of witches.
To unpack: Certain viewpoints - Racism, sexism, reactionary politics ect, tend to get excluded from most online discussion forums. Forums that are not exclusionary towards any or all of these viewpoints run an ongoing risk of being mobbed by large numbers of adherents of these viewpoints because they are not so welcome elsewhere. Scott is a very light touch moderator when it comes to politics. Which, while probably good epistemology - Shutting up everyone you disagree with is a good way to get an echo-chamber -- is in fact a hazardous practice on the internet, because once you hit a critical mass of right wing nutters, your forum degenerates into an outpost of 4-chan. So, basically a case of "Never read the comment section".
u/water125 [-5] (4 hours later)
That's a much better use of the phrase, but I don't think that's how it was meant in this case. Regardless, regarding Slatestar: It's basically a fan forum for Scott Alexander, Right? That's what it says in the sidebar anyway, more or less.
This is his rational wiki page. He's arguably an anti-feminist. He's also a proponent of "human biodiversity" which is common code for Racialism: the idea that the races of humanity are different enough that they have different abilities, which is pseudo-scientific bull pushed by racists since the 1700s to dehumanize non-white people, and has been actively debunked since the 30s. If the section on his views on communism is correct, then he's also terribly misinformed on that, as he's criticizing a ridiculous strawman.
Altogether, seems like not the sort of person I'd like the fans of. More like a youtube "rationalist" than an actual rationalist.
u/Megika [+25] (5 hours later)
SSC is Scott Alexander’s blog.
You’re criticizing him based on his rationalwiki page instead of actually reading anything he wrote?
u/elysian_field_day [+12] (16 hours later)
So I feel the need to chime in here, because after reading the rational wiki page, it strikes me as shining a significantly biased light on him - I am not an active commenter on SSC, but I find the articles are well-written and aimed at finding the truth of the matter at hand. Certainly without shying away from uncomfortable subjects, and there is a general spirit of "taking even the craziest worldview seriously for the sake of debate, as long as everyone remains respectful". This obviously doesn't always work, since this is the internet and all, but I find it still more productive than two sides of an argument not communicating at all and/or screaming obscenities at each other, which seems to be the default when it comes to politics.
Personally, while I don't agree with Scott Alexander on numerous issues, I find his arguments are usually well-reasoned and the articles rather thought-provoking. For me, reading the blog has been educational, both for understanding political views that differ significantly from my own, as well as odd but interesting topics of medical science, statistics and so on. While your mileage may vary, I would recommend you take an actual look at some of the articles to form an opinion on the blog, the wiki page does not seem like a great basis for that.
u/ArisKatsaris [+11] Sidebar Contender (21 hours later)
I suggest rereading A Fable of Science and Politics
If for a thousand years everyone who said "the sky is color X" used such a idea to excuse and justify politics that were downright *evil*, and used it for the horrific abuse of other people -- then one naturally worries that declaring the sky to be X will enable these bad people again, or make other people think you're as evil as the horrible X-skyists who committed all those atrocities in the past. One might even feel it a moral obligation to declare the sky to be Y, just to combat the X-skyists even if you don't really know one way or another what is true.
And yet the sky may nonetheless still be X, and that fact still does NOT justify the evils that were committed (or still being committed) in the name of the X-colored sky in the slightest bit -- the X-colored sky (whether blue or green) is not a moral truth, it's just a meaningless thing. There's no God that made it as it should be, neither nature nor physics is gifting us with moral truths. Observation can only tell us what is, not what should be.
And those people who claim the sky to be X -- they may indeed perhaps be seeking to justify said evils -- or they may alternately just be truth-seekers who honestly believe it in spite of all the horrible evils committed in its name.
They may even be against the evil X-sky *politics*, but be feeling it's counterproductive to battle the X-skiers via using a false claim that the sky is Y -- they may feel that the evil X-sky politics must be combatted on the basis of ethics, justice, and morality, not by using false claims on regards to what is or isn't true.
So basically... I would suggest charity towards people with scientific opinions you don't share, and even ideas that lots of evil people spew. A belief regarding a scientific fact can be true or false, ignorant or not -- but the belief itself is not good or evil, even though many of the people who hold it may be.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+2] Dai-Gurren Brigade (a day later)
If for a thousand years everyone who said "the sky is color X" used such a idea to excuse and justify politics that were downright evil, and used it for the horrific abuse of other people -- then one naturally worries that declaring the sky to be X will enable these bad people again, or make other people think you're as evil as the horrible X-skyists who committed all those atrocities in the past. One might even feel it a moral obligation to declare the sky to be Y, just to combat the X-skyists even if you don't really know one way or another what is true.
The issue with ideas of biological determinism is that they're not completely unrelated to the treatment itself. It's not like saying "you know who else thought Pi = 3.1415...? Nazi engineers!". We do accept that some humans, who are for example mentally disabled, may have reduced rights and be placed in foster care due to this biologically determined fact that they have no control over. If you went down the same road for human races, that would actually make a potential moral case even for colonialism. Which is how colonialism was justified in the first place, in fact.
I haven't seen or read anything from Scott Alexander to this effect, and given how quickly people can jump to conclusions from only tenuous logical connections sometimes I'd need some hard proof to believe he's actually a racist. Simply believing that there are genetic differences between races isn't in itself very shocking - of course there are, or they wouldn't look different to begin with. Though apparently none of these differences are obvious enough to really draw a sharp boundary between human "races" in term of genome (which actually scientifically speaking makes them basically a non-category). Believing that these differences bleed into matters of the mind - be it IQ or attitudes - has potentially far more dangerous consequences. Does not mean that if it were true it would necessarily be a great strategy to try and deny or hide it, but it would definitely be more difficult to handle. Though I know of no actual solid data suggesting anything like it either. In the worst case scenario, aka: if there actually were such differences, then you'd have to face an actual moral choice that's quite tricky. Though I'd still argue that, seeing the practical effects of racism in the past, and considering that whatever differences there may be between population averages obviously must be small compared to the standard deviation (or we'd have noticed already), a combination of practicality and respect for individual rights still warrants an egalitarian viewpoint, regardless of any outcomes.
If Scott Alexander either believes in such differences without any solid basis of data, or believes in non-egalitarian moral systems as a consequence of them... then that would actually make him a racist, yeah.
u/ArisKatsaris [+2] Sidebar Contender (a day later)
Believing that these differences bleed into matters of the mind - be it IQ or attitudes - has potentially far more dangerous consequences.
Unfortunately it's the fact that it has 'potentially far more dangerous consequences' that means we're biased into wanting to believe the thing that would make us 'safer', and would help the egalitarian politics we want.
If Scott Alexander either believes in such differences without any solid basis of data,
Almost every person is born with one head, one heart, two lungs, one stomach, two five-fingered hands, etc. In those case there's no variation. But the thing is that any case where there's any genetic variation within a group, inevitably leads to variation between the averages of different groups, even if there's significant overlap between the sets as a whole.
If some people are short, and some people are tall, and that's partly because of genetics (as it indeed is) -- then inevitably an ethnic group X, will be taller or shorter on *average* than an ethnic group Y. There'll be at least some *slight* variation on what the average height of the group is. It'll be very hard for those average heights to completely coincide. I have no clue whether people of e.g. Indian descent are taller or shorter *on average* than people of Greek descent, but I am pretty certain there'll be at least *some* difference in the average height of those two groups.
And unfortunately the same principle works for e.g. average weight, average penis or breast size, and yeah, almost definitely average potential intelligence as well. The mind's hardware is the brain which is definitely affected by genetics...
So I believe there's probably a difference on average intelligence between different groups, based on the seeming fact that there's a difference on average ANYTHING of ANY two groups.
That probably makes me a racist in your eyes (no 'solid data' here, just reasoning), but I can't emphasize enough how much I loathe racist politics. Eventually, as a transhumanist, I look forward to the time where with gene therapy or brain-enhancement or whatever, the average intelligence of all ethnic groups will be increased and equalized.
u/SimoneNonvelodico [+2] Dai-Gurren Brigade (a day later)
But the thing is that any case where there's any genetic variation within a group, inevitably leads to variation between the averages of different groups, even if there's significant overlap between the sets as a whole.
Sure, but there's such a thing as statistical fluctuations. We can calculate their likelihoods too, and they would not be constant - just an accident of who's alive at a given moment. Any significant measurement would need to be more consistent than that.
To expect that, if I took all black people existing right now, and all white people existing right now, I'd get exactly the same average IQ would be ridiculous. But if I took any number of completely random subsets of these two groups I expect the differences between the two averages to be random themselves. I'm not enough of an expert to remember all the formulas by heart but I know methods to compensate for this effect exist. If someone were to publish a paper arguing that one race has an IQ higher than another they would have to show that their result is statistically significant - namely, that it exceeds these sort of random fluctuations. Otherwise it tells us nothing but an historical accident. Racism is grounded in thinking there is a consistent difference rooted in genetics.
u/somerandomguy2008 [+9] (5 hours later)
Regarding Slatestar: It's basically a fan forum for Scott Alexander, Right?
Well, slatestarcodex.com is Scott's blog. The subreddit r/slatestarcodex is a forum that discusses topics related to things Scott has mentioned on his blog so that's kind of close to a fan forum, I suppose. At any rate, while I disagree with much of what rational wiki has to say about Scott, I'd prefer not to engage in an argument on those points at the moment.
However, I do think that you should be made aware that Scott-style "rational" is more representative of the kind of "rational" this subreddit tends to endorse.
We're all part of the same cult.Both this subreddit and Scott's blog trace back to LessWrong. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote the core texts of "LessWrong" and "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality." Scott, known as Yvain on LessWrong, started SlateStarCodex as a sort of spin-off from the articles he wrote there. This "rational" subreddit is a spin-off from HPMOR. So we share the same roots of LessWrong-style rationality. This subreddit is a fiction branch, and SlateStarCodex is a (mostly) nonfiction branch, but we're all part of the same "rationalist" group (none of us like the name) which is often opposed to the "rational" views presented by rational wiki. So... beware of the not-so-tenuous connection, I guess.
u/water125 [+2] (5 hours later)
I'm well aware. The difference is that politically most works here aren't garbage. I also don't have nearly as much of a problem with yudkowsky, or LessWrong. I may not be so regular a commenter, but I read (present-tense) MoL, WTC, Practical Guide, and Worm, and have finished the waves arisen, HPMOR, Time Braid, Luminosity and its sequel, and probably some others that I've forgotten. I consider myself a member of this community, and I object to the notion that we're in the same group as these people who literally believe in racial science. If I'm wrong, then I've severely misjudged this community.
u/somerandomguy2008 [+15] (5 hours later)
I don't reject your membership to this community. You don't have to believe in "racial science" or agree with Scott to be here. I do think that we're at least a loosely associated community and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the connection because of how wary you were of it, but there's no list of beliefs you have to endorse to enjoy the fiction here. Happy to have you.
u/water125 [+8] (5 hours later)
In that case, I appreciate your concern. Thank you.
u/i6i [+4] (18 hours later)
I also don't have nearly as much of a problem with yudkowsky, or LessWrong. I may not be so regular a commenter, but I read (present-tense) MoL, WTC, Practical Guide, and Worm, and have finished the waves arisen, HPMOR, Time Braid, Luminosity and its sequel, and probably some others that I've forgotten.
Most of those are more right-libertarian than SlateStar...
u/water125 [+1] (a day later)
Can you elaborate on that? Because in my view, most either don't take a stand on politics in a meaningful way, or are fairly progressive.
u/i6i [+3] (a day later)
You don't have to try hard to be more politically right wing than the blog about how "Noam Chomsky is generally correct but omits important details out of necessity of convincing a mainstream audience." Most are far more likely to take digs at ineffectual government bureaucrats than say corporate lobbyist for example.
u/crivtox [+2] Closed Time Loop Enthusiast (a day later)
Maybe you just misjudged scott instead ?. Like if you think that p(people here are racist |people here read slate star codex)is high .
And that p(a lot of people here are racist ) Is really low .
If someone tell you there is a lot of overlap between the communities maybe you should be udapting in the thing you have less evidence of , aka Scott being horrible , since your only source is a rationalwiki article (which isn't always the most reliable thing )
u/immute [+3] Secretly Awesome (a day later)
When will you start on book 2?
u/Ephemeralen [+4] (11 seconds later)
For those of you who missed it the first time, or decided not to make an account on Questionable Questing, Veilfall: A Rousing Rebirth is now available in ebook form!
After being thrust unexpectedly into the world of the supernatural, a neophyte magical girl has to balance her mundane career in indie porn against the lurking threat of fey creatures hunting lonely men in her city, while the tenuous balance in a fellow magical girl's life comes crashing down on them both in this explicit sexually-charged journey into a dark magically-influenced alternate future.
u/ArisKatsaris [+3] Sidebar Contender (39 minutes later)
I assume that buying a copy from there does help support you, and it doesn't all go just to smashwords instead?
Also I note you like the name Eelesia, given how that was also used in Forever After Earth? :-)
u/Ephemeralen [+2] (an hour later)
It does, yes. :) I get most of it.
And well spotted, tho it could be that they're AU versions of each other... :3
u/EliezerYudkowsky [+6] Godric Gryffindor (13 hours later)
Wait, is "Eelesia"...
u/Ephemeralen [+8] (13 hours later)
///<
actually tho I made that name up like years before I'd ever heard of you
u/ArisKatsaris [+5] Sidebar Contender (21 hours later)
I'm sure the ship 'Eliezera' in Forever After Earth is a reference to you, though.
u/Ephemeralen [+3] (a day later)
Its true.
One ship named for Eliezer. The rest named for the Mane Six.
But I'm retroactively declaring that there was also a ship called Azure Butterfly off-screen. And if you know who that's a homage to, have a nectar-cookie.
u/xamueljones [+4] My arch-enemy is entropy (2 days later)
Azure Butterfly
u/Ephemeralen [+3] (2 days later)
yup!
u/Anderkent [+3] (17 hours later)
I cannot confirm or deny that Eelesia is in fact Eliezer Yudkowsky.
u/xamueljones [+3] My arch-enemy is entropy (an hour later)
Are there any differences between the version on QQ versus smashwords? I'm wondering if QQ was a first draft and smashwords is the final version.
u/Ephemeralen [+2] (4 hours later)
There are minor edits and corrections, but nothing major.