Also I am 22.
I won't move out of my parents home.
I've decided I won't start a family.
I will get a career and make money to survive.
I am gonna listen to punk rock and skateboard.
I want to be a gamer for life.
Also be individualistic and live my life in a self authored way, because it's my freedom and rights to do so.
I think it is anarchy, because building anarchy itself is intrinsically connected to social trust.
The system of anarchy is predicated on relying upon, and working with, local people you know instead of institutions and systems. I think it would make people associate with each other, and trust each other more, lowering atomization to a very low level.
A big problem that causes modern democracies to fail, is when people lose social capital, and no longer feel they can rely on others to act in good faith. Now people are divided and atomized. This breeds discontent, and also allows strongman dictators to rise and take control of governments. This can be seen in the US, Europe, and other parts of the world.
In the base game, the fact that the characters are cyborgs doesn't really affect anything I remember that much. It was sort of a background detail. And in the 2010 trailer, the characters were fully organic.
But in the DLC, with Asura vs Yasha final fight, the fact that the characters are cyborgs was actually brought to the forefront and affected the story. This is because Yasha pulls out his cyborg core heart thing and gives it to Asura.
Beforehand, I practiced standing on one leg to balance on it, and the motion of pushing, as well as rolls. I stood on the skateboard on grass to stop it from moving, so I would get used to the sensation. I also watched multiple tutorials on pushing and standing.
I was able to stand without the skateboard shooting away, multiple times.
Also, I was able to push with my back leg, balance on my front leg, and I found out was goofy.
I pushed a few times, and then eventually put my back foot on the back of the board, although that felt unbalanced.
Any time I thought I was going to lose balance, I jumped off the board with bent legs, so that was a simple way not to fall.
Then I overcommitted one time, falling off the skateboard.
Thankfully though, my arm was bent, (maybe from the practice) so I caught myself with my wrist guard, although I scraped my knee.
I noticed looking at a map that the bottom 20% of the state has 50% of the population, and I learned that it's where the sunny good weather is from. That seems like a pretty small space in terms of size, from my Canadian perspective. I think Northern California is more closer to the middle of US regional cultural variation, vs being a distinct variation like Texas, California, and the Southeast, for example. Am I right or wrong?
Edit: I'm thinking about the relaxed attitude, nice vs kind, cool guys, surfing skateboarding guys. I don't know how to describe the vibe.
I'll start skateboarding tomorrow. I came up with this idea from watching a video, but sometimes when I practiced today I ended up hitting my elbow on the ground or my wrist.
- If you go forward on a skateboard fall,
- Tuck head in
- Land on bent arm palm/forearm as a ramp to shoulder
- Roll side ways/laterally
- Loose body
Because communism is an ideal of no government, no privately owned property (in the sense of company owned property), and no currency. This is not actually possible in reality, to maintain at scale, or at length. And people have tried this form of communism before in a small scale.
The most popular communist ideology in the 20th century was Marxist Leninism which is based on the idea of a small group of trained professional revolutionaries, leading a revolution to seize state machinery and institute socialism. Which means no private property, but anything else can be run differently.
Before the 20th century there was less ideological homogeneity during the 1800s, in the left at least. Lots of anarchists, democratic socialists, and social reformists, as well as Marxists. These other types of socialists did not really have realistic plans on how to get into power, and maintain it, based on historical outcomes. The idea is that it would either be achieved through elections or by a grassroots collective revolution, without authoritarian leadership.
After WW1 the only socialist society that was built successfully was the USSR. It becomes a superpower after WW2.
Eventually people living under third world conditions and colonialism had a plausible alternative blueprint for how to run their society, because other powerful countries had essentially been exploiting them for centuries. All they needed was like a small elite of revolutionaries and to lead and agitate the masses. That is a smaller ask than to have the masses themselves lead the revolution, which is what anarchists and democratic socialists want essentially.
What is harder is to avoid turning into a dictatorship when this happens, because you're giving a few educated people a lot of power, when you're doing Marxist Leninism. Which is why they universally tend to turn into totalitarian police states. I also think there is problems when you try to wipe the slate in a revolution without having social trust and community bonds between people.
Which as demonstrated in Poland, can be built, but only by people themselves, not a few vanguard autocrats.
And the socialist economics are not sound. They tend to lead to stagnation in a command economy, and when using another type of socialist economy such as mutual aid, it cannot scale. Every type of socialism has some form of incompatibility with modernity. I'm not saying it can't work in a small community though.
There is a reason why the democratic revolutions in the late 20th century, such as in Poland, South Korea, Eastern Europe worked. They were less centralized around a few powerful people. How a revolutionary transfer between different political entities occurs, sets the tone for how the society will be governed afterwards
I only touched a skateboard a couple of times before, and I am in my early 20s, so I am more afraid of injury. I want to get all of the pads.
I am 6 feet tall so I want an 8.25 inch width skateboard. I also need to get it cheaper, so I want to get it used, but also from a real skateboard brand. I'd prefer to get something like hybrid softer durometer wheels, but I think that this could be putting the "cart before the horse."
I mostly want to learn to cruise, learn simple tricks, and then skate in a park, but as a hobby.
Is there anything that I'm missing in my decision making process?
From my research it seems like he was a jokester and a scientist.
I think he'd be shocked by how long the US has lasted, and by how powerful it became. I think people don't think about that part often, because the US was actually unstable during early decades, so the founders weren't sure if it would last.
It is shooting for simple, rules light, high power scaling compatible (stats up into the 100s, or as low as single digits), and with an over the top vibe in combat. I was using FU to run campaigns for awhile but it started feeling too simple and too coarse.
Here it is:
3d6 Resolution. With bonus and penalty based on combat/skill stats and situational advantages and disadvantages. Low/high numbers is a low/high power attack. And contested combat rolls where the degree that one number is above another is represented narratively, with no health but narrative vibes.
Use target numbers also, and depending on the difficulty, roll above a number.
I find this strange as a 20 something, because as a kid, I looked up to guys from this era as cool young adults. In three senses they are in the middle, in a new one I've discovered.
It goes like this: Lost Generation > Greatest Generation > Silent Generation > Baby Boomers > Gen X > Millennial > Gen Z > Generation Alpha > Generation Beta
I think Sonic is weak in 06 and his entire campaign is just anti feats. Whereas IDW Sonic isn't strong, he has multiple anti feats where he is threatened by like a dozen badniks, or gets taken down in one hit.
Capitalism can mean so many things but to socialists, socialism needs to be very narrowly defined. It's reasonable to posit that the USSR is socialist enough, it had no private property and lead by far left leaders, and besides at some point we need to compare reality to reality instead of theory to reality. Communists use argumentum ad dictum far too often.