Sometimes a game being a little unbalanced can make it more fun.

Growing plants to eat kills fewer plants than growing plants to feed to livestock which you then eat. The “plants’ rights activist” argument is invalid.

I used to have a job processing used laptops from offices and you would not believe how many people put Apple stickers on Thinkpads and other non-Apple products. I guess for a lot of them it’s like saying, “I’d rather be using a Mac,” or it was just to be silly, I have no idea.

16 hours ago

So uhh any thoughts on those Powerball numbers?

Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti will go a long way towards understanding my politics.

In my experience it seemed like uniforms were kinda another grift. You gotta buy everything just so from this specific place and you might never wear any of it again afterwards. I also got in trouble fairly frequently for accidentally having some part of my uniform out of order, which had more to do with forgetfulness or neurodivergence than anything.

At the same time, I didn’t really feel like it interfered with my ability to think critically or independently, but that might just be me. I was always weird enough that anyone who would have bullied me over clothes would’ve bullied me over other stuff, and my head was in the clouds anyway so I hardly noticed what I was wearing.

If anything, perhaps things like that biased my thinking in a libertarian direction, out of rebellion. It’s very easy to think that way when you’re young, and tired of parents and teachers telling you what to do.

My mind works differently from most people’s and my experiences may be atypical. But when I googled for studies I found mixed results, it doesn’t appear that there are conclusive results showing a correlation between uniforms and academic performance.

In any case, I think it’s that big of a deal. It is messed up, generally speaking, how little control kids have over their lives in the US and how people’s intrensic motivation is often killed off and they’re pushed around by extrensic motivators, rather than cooperating with what they actually want. I would say that uniforms can potentially contribute to that larger problem.

“The Last Days” for Mount & Blade. Intro

Mount & Blade was a medieval combat simulator where you’re a wandering mercenary in a war torn region. The gameplay was somewhat innovative when it came out (originally 2008), but as far as story and setting, it was kinda meh. But the great thing about it were the mods, and by far the best mod was “The Last Days,” a total conversion mod that lifted all the mechanics but put it in The Lord of the Rings.

These nerds put so much detail into that mod, it was incredible. I didn’t know half the factions existed. The map goes beyond Gondor and Rohan and even Rivendell, it goes all the way out to the goblins of Mt. Gundabad fighting against the men of Dale. Each location has tons of detail, some of them are truly massive, and they pushed the limits of the base game with trolls and giant spiders and things like that. Each individual faction has their own faction strength, so you have to think strategically about where to reinforce. The differences between how each factions’ units fight on the battlefield is more emphasized, and tbh the combat is a bit better balanced.

It really hit the nail on the head of what to do with the game engine, and then put real passion, creativity, and effort into making it work (seriously, the last update was in 2017, new stuff was being added after nearly a decade. And there’s comments on the page I linked as recently as 10 days ago, so people are still playing it). Next to it, the base game feels a bit more like a proof of concept. The open world nature of the game really allows you to take in the setting and experience the story from a different perspective, rather than following the heroes from the books. It really made the setting come alive in a way I haven’t found in really any other LotR game (although I’m not super into the setting and haven’t played a ton of them).

The mod was for the original game at first but it update when they put out the sequel, Mount & Blade: Warband, so if anyone decides to check it out, get that one rather than the original.

Serious answer:

Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimizes the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists.

-“No Compromises?” Lenin.

In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.

There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.

Makes more sense when you look at it from the perspective of class.

I studied physics in university. I didn’t put any real thought into what I was going to do with it afterwards, I was just choosing something that seemed interesting and helped me make sense of the world. What I discovered afterwards is that the main use of physics in the economy is to find new and exciting ways of blowing people up. I had been drawn to science by the idea that I was going to work towards the benefit of all humanity. I’m ashamed to admit it, but there was a moment around when I graduated when a friend of mine joined the Navy, and I really considered it. Fortunately, I came to my senses and said no.

Instead, I wound up working the meat counter at a grocery store. This was before I went vegan but I still had negative feelings about it. From there, I wound up picking in an Amazon warehouse for a couple years, and I’ve kinda bounced around other warehouses, occasionally getting involved in some technical roles in them.

Amazon’s a big evil corporation, but at least it’s honest work and a peaceful life. I could never live with myself if I did something in service of the war machine. To me, stopping what you’re doing to go move boxes at Amazon is kinda the baseline to me, like it’s not perfectly ethical but if doing that is significantly better for the world than what you’re doing, then like… the option exists for you. If you’re doing something evil like working for the military industrial complex, then that’s on you, sure it might be much less pleasant and less lucrative but burglary is lucrative too and that doesn’t make it justified. It’s far better to live a small, humble life making sure that you leave the world better than you found it than to have a big impact but it’s negative.

I guess some people might be able to tune out the screams or twist their brain into knots justifying it, but idk. If you’re walking down the street and you see someone screaming in pain, your instinct is to help them. You want to help them. You want to help them. That urge to help them is your own will. If you take that suffering and hide it away where you won’t see it, all you’re doing is decieving yourself into subverting your own, natural inclination towards empathy and compassion. That’s not really the sort of thing healthy people do, is it? My dabbling in Buddhism is showing here, but that’s what I’d call, “taking refuge in ignorance.” That’s no way to live your life, hiding from the ghosts of your victims.

My time working at a meat counter called my attention to my feelings about meat, and I didn’t act on them until much later but it planted a seed in my mind that might not have been there otherwise, it brought my conflicted feelings to the forefront. Every time I ate meat, I had a little feeling of guilt in my heart that I pushed aside, but once I finally listened to it, a weight was lifted and I’m much happier for it. I might not have ever really noticed and examined that if I hadn’t had that job.

There’s a lot of edge cases no matter where you draw the line, and I say, do what you will, but never turn away from the truth. If you feel conflicted, face that conflict, if you feel uneasy, interrogate that feeling, figure out what your mind is telling you and how best to follow your feelings, judgement, and conscience. And if you wanna stomach something you feel is wrong so you can get that bag, you know, that’s your decision, just know that you’ll have to live with it the rest of your life.

Bein’ one a them damn dirty Reds

I wasn’t actually aware it was just Norway, so I appreciate the correction.

No, oil rich Norway.

Thanks, I didn’t know about it and I’ll definitely check it out.

I didn’t source very well but a lot of my info comes from “All the Shah’s Men” by Stephen Kinzer, which I highly recommend.

Having a lot of resources is a curse. Countries that have natural ressources (Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, Russia) tend to be highly corrupt and exploited by a small elite. It’s simple. The elite can take control of the oil fields, the gas fields, the mines. Just sell ressources. Shoot protesters. No need to invest in anything else. It’s much better to live a country with limited resources (Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland). Lack of resources force the elites to invest in science and education. The most unlucky country in Africa is Congo. It’s full of diamonds, forests, oil, gas, lithium, cobalt, rare earth. So Congo has suffered horribly because of that. In fact, it’s still being looted.

This isn’t actually true. You can look at the Nordic countries which are very oil rich and owe a lot of their prosperity to that. The United States is pretty resource rich as well. What is a curse is imperialism, and having lots of resources attracts lots of imperialists. The “oil curse” or “resource curse” is a myth made up to whitewash imperialists and absolve them of guilt.

Strap in and let me tell you about my special interest, Iranian history. In the 1800s, before the discovery of oil, Iran was ruled by an extremely corrupt line of shahs who sold out every part of the impoverished country to fund their lavish lifestyles and massive harems - to the point that other countries had to step in and say that they weren’t allowed to sell out that much of the country. But the Iranian people were upset by this state of affairs, and staged a massive boycott, which set the stage for a mass movement in 1905 that established a democratic parliament and a constitution, with the support of an overwhelming majority, including the clergy (a fatwa was actually issued declaring violating the boycott to be haram). Iran was well on it’s way to becoming a peaceful, prosperous, democratic society - but then the Fire Nation attacked, in the form of the British and Russian Empires moving in, shelling the parliament building and dividing the nation between themselves, like a pack of wolves.

The Iranian people suffered tremendously in the following years, with major plagues, famines, and genocide conducted by the Ottoman Empire. Of course, the Russian Empire collapsed, the British took the opportunity to unify the country, propping up a shah of a new dynasty as their puppet. That shah proved uncooperative during WWII, and the Allies invaded to set up supply lines between the Eastern and Western fronts and to secure the Iranian oil (which had now been discovered), and the shah was forced to abdicate to his son, who the British found more amenable.

The British technically owned the rights to Iran’s oil, but the deal they had made was with the previous dynasty (Qajar). The one that had been selling out their country to an absurd degree, the one that had been overthrown by the people precisely because they were selling out the country, and so naturally the deal they had struck with the British regarding oil (which had been made before oil had even been discovered in Iran) gave them extremely lucrative terms. But it actually didn’t matter how lucrative the terms were because the British were just straight up stealing it. They falsified their records and forbid any kind of inspection of their facilities.

This led the Iranian people to once again mobilize in support of democracy and self-rule. As outrage over the exploitation grew, the shah, who had previously rubber-stamped anyone the British picked, began to fear his own people more than the British and appointed democratic reformer Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister. After the Iranians had watched the British stonewall them for decades, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry with overwhelming public support. Iran was once again on track to becoming a peaceful, democratic, independent country.

But the British set up a naval blockade that crippled their economy. Iranians, at this point, had a neutral to positive view of the US, and hoped that it would live up to its stated ideals and support them against the British. The British, meanwhile, expected the Americans to back up their “property rights.” President Truman threw up his hands in frustration, seeing both sides as intransigent. But Churchill simply waited him out, and offered his successor Eisenhower British support in Korea and NATO in exchange for the CIA launching a coup, and so Iran was passed around like a bargaining chip. Mossadegh’s commitment to democratic ideals allowed the CIA free reign, he didn’t crack down on the press despite the CIA controlling virtually all the newspapers, he didn’t crack down on protests while the CIA was hiring protesters on both sides, etc. Naturally, he was ousted (although the CIA denied it/covered it up for decades), and the shah was given much more power (which he used to hunt down and exterminate the Iranian left) and the oil kept flowing.

But after a few decades, once again, outrage over the exploitation came to a head, and the shah, seeking to appease his people, participated in a multinational oil boycott. But as a result, his foreign support was withdrawn, which set the stage for the Islamic Revolution. President Carter, against the advice of his state department, allowed the shah to take refuge in the US. Naturally, this outraged the Iranians, because the US had previously staged a coup to install the very same man as a dictator. In retaliation, some of the revolutionaries seized the US embassy and took hostages. This of course led to a breakdown in relations between the US and Iran.

And so, Iran is often held up as an example of this supposed “resource curse” that leads to political instability (not to mention the old line about “Islam is incompatible with democracy”), but the reality is that the country had multiple times in its history where it could’ve become stable, peaceful, democratic, and independent, but those chances were destroyed, not by Iranians, but by foreign imperialists, the vile colonial empires of the British and Americans. Had they simply been left alone, they would not have suffered from this supposed “resource curse.” If you look into the history of any similar country, you will find a similar story. But the history of these countries are simply not taught and not known in the imperial core, and so other explanations are invented.

In one of those examples, the people of NK worship Kim and his father and grandfather as literal gods.

Lol, no they don’t.

What’s wild about this is that people predicted AI would be used for nefarious purposes, but generally in the form of like, showing your opponents doing crimes. But here it’s being used to show their own side doing crimes while the other side is only made to look “cringy” or more like a stereotype.

It really speaks to the utter depravity of the US right that, given a machine that can generate any video of anything they could imagine, this is what they do. These people are utterly incompatible with any kind of free or even functional society, and I really don’t know what could ever be done fix them or their culture.

Oh no, I’m not happy about the US falling apart, because the military strength is still there, and that creates a very dangerous situation. We could see a situation where a president starts WWIII and nukes China or something, just to distract from internal problems. The right is much better equipped and has more clarity of vision, while the left is weak, disorganized, unarmed, and confused. In the event of chaos and a breakdown in government, it’s hard to imagine that anything good would come of it.

In my ideal world, the US gradually draws back from international commitments while refocusing on domestic problems, accepting a smaller role and (after addressing domestic issues) competing with China through soft power, regarding who can offer developing countries the best deal.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to like my approach (people even call me an accelerationist despite my perapective being pretty much the opposite of that), so we’re going to crash at full speed. Hopefully the rest of the world survives.

I think it’s just American culture, we can’t accept potentially being #2, or not being Superman, or not pouring all our money into bombs.

good friends with Lenin as Trotsky was

Tell me you’ve never read Lenin without telling me

Trotsky arrived, and this scoundrel at once ganged up with the Right wing […]

What a swine this Trotsky is: Left phrases, and a bloc with the Right.

This is an instance of high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism… The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue.

Trotsky has never yet held a firm opinion on any important question of Marxism. He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other.

Trotsky behaves like a despicable careerist and factionalist of the Ryazanov-and-co type. Either equality on the editorial board, subordination to the central committee and no one’s transfer to Paris except Trotsky’s (the scoundrel, he wants to ‘fix up’ the whole rascally crew of ‘Pravda’ at our expense!) – or a break with this swindler and an exposure of him in the CO. He pays lip-service to the Party and behaves worse than any other of the factionalists.

This is just a random sample, if you want more I can go on, for as long as you like.