u/Raspint

Came here right after finishing the Conversion therapy video. There is a part of that video in which Abby talks about how easy it has always been for her Mum to get the same kind of drugs that Abby had to go through an immense amount of state invasion into her private life to get.

And this really has cemented in my mind just how easy and simple the argument for transitioning: It's just the same as why cis people should be allowed to change our bodies. And for me this is very easy to justify because I believe that we are the masters of our own bodies (you're not going to like how far I take this though).

Like, cis people have the right to change and modify our bodies in some pretty extreme ways. Dare I say we have the right to 'fuck up' our bodies. You can see articles in the tabloids about young women who get their boyfriend's name tattooed on their face occasionally. And from my view, the appropriate response to that is to go "Freedom motherfucker do you speak it??" When people have the right to do things they sometimes make horrible choices that ruin their lives. Doesn't mean the State should remove the legal right of dumb teens to get face tattoos. And most people it seems generally agree with me, because to this day people still get dumb tattoos without being criminally charged.

There really is no argument I can think of that allows for the above, but then claims that trans people cannot do the same thing. **Especially** when it comes to non-permanent things like puberty blockers, or social transition (ie, hair and clothes). The only possible argument for having one and not the other can only be based in a dislike of transness, which is - ultimately - a feels over reals inclination.

And for years now, before trans people became THE visible issue that it is today, that was always my thought process. Again, you're not going to like this, but the way I see it I'm the master of my own body. If I want to have my leg amputated just because I really like peg-leg pirates, or if the thought of being an amputee makes me horny, or I if I'm curious about what human flesh tastes like and I want to try it on my leg, I think that I have an Odin-given right to do so (I have no desire to any of the above and I would not recommend it).

The way I see it the idea that trans people are some kind of new phenomenon cooked up by young people today is nonsense. It's another extension of the same values that I endorse as someone who likes the Enlightenment values: Autonomy, an emphasis on reason, happiness, and freedom over tradition, etc. The idea that our society wasn't completely correct when it came to what gender is isn't that different from the idea that our society wasn't correct about the roles of men and women in society.

I've seen some discussion here lately about whether or not it was a good idea to explain what the Markers were and where they came from. I wanted to give my two cents. I get that many times a monster is better left unexplained. Mass Effect is a good example where explaining the monsters backfired spectacularly.

But for me Dead Space is actually one of the rare examples of explaining the horror done well. And that's because - even if unintentional on the part of the initial writers - the thematic groundwork of the moons was already laid in the first two games.

Think about what the Moons are: They are an amalgamation of the organic material of thousands of necomorphs (or corpses) combined into one massive entity. Now consider the following:

What is the main 'line' of these games? What's the catchphrase repeated by the humans affected by the Marker? It is 'Make us whole."

And then, consider what the beliefs are of the church of scientiolog - I mean - Unitology: Their tenet is that after death we will be united with everyone into one massive mind. And that our bodies should be preserved for this to happen. (These ideas are at least in DS2 and you see them when you go to the church, but I think they're also in DS1).

The moons make the above make sense. They work because it fits with the 'make us whole' idea. And, critically, they allow for the fucking amazing irony that the church of unitology is actually correct. The church is correct that we will all be combined after death, and that 'we' will make up a new body/mind of which we will all be apart.

I mean, the church is correct in the most horrible, disgusting way. A way that, if the majority of unitologists knew the truth, would find horrifying. When unitologists talk about unity and surviving death, they probably have an idea in their head that looks NOTHING like the reality of the Brethren Moons.

But, in the most evil-genie 'technically' way possible, Unitology, and everything unitologists believe, is actually "correct."

And that irony is fucking PEAK.

I'm just wondering about this. I remember when I was doing my undergrad philosophy and he was just considered a good guy to cite and whose work was admired, be it his linguistics or his foreign policy. In a lot of the online spaces I occupy the prevailing attitude has been that his legacy is forever ruined.

What is the prevailing attitude about him in academia since the Epstein reveals?

So I am not saying "Movies today are at large, worse than the movies of ten years ago or longer." What I am saying is it seems like there is a certain kind of movie you don't see often at the theaters anymore.

On a lark I put on 'As good as it gets' with Jack Nicholson because it was in my vhs collection. And it's not the greatest thing ever but I enjoyed it. And then it got me thinking about some other older movies that I've seen lately: About Schmidt (which I think is actually great for what it is).

And other than Jack Nicholson, one of the things that I really enjoyed about these movies was that there were both just kinda... chill.

- They're original IPs. The idea of a sequel for them isn't even something you'd consider, and they are not a part of any franchise.

- The characters are very ordinary, and the problems that they are dealing with are very ordinary. No world ending threat, nothing even physically dangerous. The problems were very small, like "Will this ordinary person deal with this ordinary problem and make their life better? The consequences of failure in these movies would just mean the main character's life doesn't become as good as it can be.

I almost felt challenged by these. It's like the movie was going "Hey idiot. Can you be bothered enough to care about this pudgy aging man with OCD get a girlfriend, without a CGI battle in the third act?"

And it felt good. It felt like I've been inside a rave for the past 4 years, I'm overstimulated, and I'm in a very calm spa and it feels indescribably calming.

And I don't think I've seen a movie like this on the big screen in quite some time. Don't get me wrong, these movies do exist. The Holdovers came out a few years ago and it was a phenomenal example of the kind of movie I'm talking about, and it might even be a new favourite of mine. But I don't know if it came out on the big screen.

Because if I'm correct then I think it would be sad if audiences didn't have the option to go see these kind of films on the big screen.

I thought this would be a good question to ask historians because asking how reliable a given source is one of the foundations of historiography. I'm currently reading Kotkin's immense biography of Stalin. And I found out halfway through that Kotkin is part of the Hoover Institute. Which is a conservative think tank (though I think conservative in the bygone sense, not in the openly fascistic and xenophobic sense the GOP is now.)

So it's the kind of place where things like free markets, capital ownership, etc are going to be taken as a given. Basically an institution like this is ideologically opposed to what not just Stalin, but Communism itself stood for. Basically - in the abstract - it makes sense to go "This is not going to give a fair, or accurate look at these figures."

However

This is such an immense and detailed work of scholarship that I think it would be way too harsh to just go 'It's anti-communist propaganda.' I'm not going to visit the archives in Russia to back this up or anything, but his use of sources seems about as professional as any other historian I've read.

So historians, what is your view on this conundrum?

I've had conversations with tankies, and once I bring up evidence from this book they immediately dismiss it as 'Western pro-capitalist propaganda.' And that's not stupid on the face of it. If someone came from an institution that was pro-Reaganomics and they were writing about how dangerous worker unions were, I'd be pretty quick to dismiss them.

However

Let's I read a chronicle of Nazi atrocities that was very detailed and backed up it's claims with good research and citations. And then I find out that that chronicle was written by a Jewish author from a university in Israel. Or if it was a queer Romani woman from an explicitly pro-LGBTQ institution. I would not have any problem with that, nor would I worry about possible biases, despite that those are probably two of the most anti-Nazi people and environments on earth.

(I'm posting this here because Vaush has covered Orwell before, and I hope you'll see that that this is 'thematically' relevant to a lot of Vaush's content.)

I'm trying to do more reading lately, and Orwell is someone who I've liked reading. Even though is politcs and mine are aligned, I also really enjoy his prose. Anyway, some of the themes from a short essay of his called "Writers and Leviathan" really sound thematically similar to a lot of what has become a staple of Vwoush's brand.

One of the points in his essay is about how, once you have joined a political movement/ideology, there are certain questions that simply cannot genuinely discussed because they are - in the true sense of the term - politically incorrect. Even if the facts and implications that surround the question are indeed factually correct.

Like, we're all at least left sympathetic here. And things like white supremacy, misogyny, and capitalism, transphobia, are the main bosses that we're up against. However...

- Sometimes minorities can be really fucking reactionary/fascist/racist and it's not good (ie, professor flowers)

- The 'communist' countries like China and the Soviet Union are really shit. Yes, even though America was lynching black people.

The two above positions are probably among the two biggest reasons why Vwiowoush is so ostracized by the rest of the left, and it's why I don't imagine I'll get much push back on saying these things here, that I would if I posted it in other subreddits.

And this essay is just full of so many bangers where Orwell describes just that:

- "To accept an orthodoxy is always to inherit unresolved contradictions. Take for instance the fact that all sensitive people are revolted by industrialism...yet are away that the conquest of poverty and the emancipation of the working class demands more industrialization, not less."

- "Or take the fact that certain jobs are absolutely necessary and yet are never done except under some kind of coercion" (that one's for you thoughtslime).

- "In every case there is a conclusion which is perfectly plain but which can only be drawn if one is privately disloyal to the official ideology."

It's funny how little things change and how relevant something written so long ago feels so relevant.

Potentially stupid question:

So, over the years Orwell has kinda become one of my favorite authors. Beyond the two big ones, Coming up for Air, and I've found that I really enjoy reading his essays and his letters, even when writing to people about subjects I've never heard of am have no bearing on me. There's something about his prose that I find comforting and enjoyable - it has that English quality of being descriptive, concise, but also approachable at the same time. And I've just always taken for granted that he's just considered a staple of the canon by low brow and snobbish readers alike.

But I've slowly come to suspect that he's not. 1984 is largely a meme at this point, even though I think the novel does a legitimately good job at exploring the themes of social control, group think, and weaponized irrationality. There was a list of 100 greatest novels that was released, and 1984 was on it, and a book commentator that I enjoy mentioned made an aside that "It probably shouldn't be on that list," as if that was a given.

In terms of world, capital L literature, is Orwell considered in the same category as fellows like Tolstoy, Nabokov, or Austin? Or is his work too 'on the nose' and in your face?

CW and Spoiler warning: Discussion of disturbing racial violence and hatred.

So I've heard about Mr. Baldwin since I was a teenager, but I never actually got around to meeting him. So I decided to start, and I specifically wanted to see his fiction given I'm a wannabe writer. Btw I'm white, and I'm not American (normally that wouldn't matter, but it kinda does give context for an author who explores themes like this). Anyway, I started with the story The Outing, which I couldn't really get into and put down because I found it hard to follow exactly who was who and who was saying what. But that might be my fault, I'm a work and I've got a bit of heat exhaustion right now, so maybe that's why I couldn't follow it.

So instead I started reading Going to Meet the Man and...

Holy shit

I have so many thoughts about this. And I think it'd be best if I just listed them.

Monstrous protagonist: Our main character is such a vile, vile piece of shit. I know that Mr. Baldwin was a gay black man, and he does such a fantastic job of putting us in the POV of a thoroughly violent, racist, rapist. And yet he also manages to make Jesse feel like a real human.

There's so many little parts where Baldwin manages to perfectly describe the thought processes of a man full of hate. "They were animals...here they had been in a civilized country and they still lived like animals."

And yet, despite Jesse's enjoyment at brutalizing black people, and raping black women, Baldwin spends half the story with Jessie as a little boy. And Baldwin does not hate this child. It's clear as day because Baldwin describes the mixed feelings of joy and admiration and fear that he feels while watching the lynching. Reading this book really felt like Baldwin was trying to say "No wonder this man is like this. He was raised like this" without ever pulling any punches on just how inhuman Jesse's hatred is.

This actually fits and does not fit with what I've heard of Baldwin before: That he, a black advocate, felt uncomfortable when he was in black spaces that would talk about how all white people are the devil. And yet Baldwin pulls no punches with showing how monstrous white surpmacist violence is.

The sexual nature: I found it so interesting, and yet it felt very appropriate, that Jesse's feelings of hatred were so mixed up his feelings of sexuality. Jessie as a boy seems oddly enmoured with the gentiles of the lynched man, and adult uber-racist Jessie seems like he is more sexually turned on by the black women he thinks are animals.

It feels like it was written today: I know that Baldwin is writing about a specific time American time period. But Jessie reminded me so much of the modern conservative. And while I don't have enough empirical evidence for this, I've felt for a while now that there is a connection between widespread hatred of groups, and... let's call it weird sexual feelings.

- Hitler was what we would call an incel when it came to women.

- Trans porn on pornhub is one of the most popular searches in the US, and you know it ain't just blue states where that's popular.

- America is a suuuuper racist country and yet the whole BBC porn fetish is popular there. And again, ain't just blue states.

- Trans porn being found on Alex Jone's phone.

- I've lost count how many times I've heard of a super homophobic Christian leaders have been caught having sex with men in a gas station bathroom at 4 am.

This was really fantastic, gripping, and relevant. Baldwin's got the sauce. This book should be mandatory reading in grade 9. (Okay that's a joke but also not really).

So I just lost a round of Plague Inc were I got *this* close to dominating all of humanity. I had full symptoms, the worm was fully in control of the mind of its subjects, it's tendrils reached far down across the host's brain (as you could see in the little side column). So if you're infected with this thing you're fucked basically. I picked options that would have the worm enslave, rather than kill it's host. And because some scientists in Greenland were still doing their thing, they developed a cure and started rolling it out even though I'd infected like 95% of humanity.

What I'm curious about, is what could you actually do to cure something like that? Anything that's like that ingrained in the human brain, aren't you just going to have to kill the human in order to kill the parasite?

And also, if most of the world is either dead, or worshipping the worm, how are you going to mass produce that cure so it gets all across the globe?

I'm not mad I lost or anything, but I thought it'd be fun to imagine how you'd fix a problem like that.

I've seen people, and Vwoosh himself, mention this a few times. Apparently he went on a segment where he discussed how more people, himself included, should try and sit down and read challenging texts more often.

Does anyone have a link to that segment?

I realize I've never read Baldwin before, and I'd like to fix that. I'm also not very up to speed on black literature from the period, or in general (also I'm white). I'm looking for a good piece of fiction (even though I know Baldwin wrote lots of non fiction).

What do you recommend? Novels or short stories are things I'm open too. I know I could ask google but I wanted to hear from real people.

Thank you.

This was great. I did my first ever attempt on the hardest difficulty not expecting to win this round. Named my worm "The New God" and successfully enslaved the human race on my first go.

It was also very funny when the pop up about "The New God awareness day" came up. Sound like they were already worshipping the worm rather than raising awareness for the disease.

Just a detail that I wanted to gush over, but I've always liked it when the Predators use their voice recorders to just fuck with people. I get that it's another hunting tool, same way that hunters will use duck calls to attract ducks, but there's plenty of times where its very obvious that the Predators are using this thing just to fuck with the person they are about to kill.

It's a nice little reminder that yes, while these things are hunters with a weird sense of 'honour' that that 'honour' doesn't equal "These are noble creatures with a strong moral code." That they are also assholes who look down on us and take some delight in our suffering.

I haven't seen the Predator in forever and never saw Badlands, but Pred 1,2, and Predators, has some good instances of this. And for any of you nerds who played Concrete Jungle back in the day you know that game is chalk full of examples of that.

I just re-started this game, and the last time I played it I just got past the tutorial. So I'm still a super-newb, and most of the information/stuff here is overwhelming me.

Any easy advice about obvious things I should know that would make me better?

(On console btw)

I remember when I was a kid school showed me a documentary about the French revolution, and when they were discussing Marat they described him has someone who was always calling for the execution of various political adversaries. And I remember thinking this to myself, and I swear I meant this completely genuinely:

"How could anyone ever be so angry that they would want someone killed just over a political disagreement?"

I miss that little boy. Because I get it now. I was still a teenager when 2016 happened, and the political education that I got from school, reading, and just the media that I consumed was sending me message of moral nuance in politics. Ie:

- 'Evil' people don't really exist, or they are rare.

- People who disagree with you politically have good reasons to do so. Everyone has a perspective that is 'valid,' even if they are incorrect. Therefore you have to respect those who think differently, and always keep your mind open to maybe realizing that they are right about something.

I also grew up with an obsession about the Nazis. I've spent over a decade learning a great deal about the Holocaust, the methods leading up to it, how it was carried out, and what happened afterwords. And no matter where I looked or who I spoke to, every single person took it as a given that the Nazis were an abhorrent regime and that we must remember and understand the Holocaust to prevent such atrocities from happening.

And now there are so many fucking people I see who say "The Holocaust NEVER happened! It's a Jewish lie! And even if it did happen, it was fucking based and let's do it again!"

I've read and seen things that chilled my blood, and then made me go numb. But now I see people who look at those same things and go "Yeah bro, let's try again!"

I truly hate my political enemies today. And I don't see the nuance. My brother is Canadian-MAGA, and I hate him now. The way I see it, he supports a pedophile, he wants to deport all the brown people (and if they die who cares) and he also wants to suck Putin's cock (My family is Ukrainian, his isn't).

I don't see the nuance anymore. I love my brother and I hate him because he is a despicable, vile man who wants *more* death and pain in the world while somehow being a loving father to my niece and nephew. And I do not believe there is no interpretation of his politics that are not despicable.

Hey everyone, I've been working on my magnum opus Codex Kochinski: Musing from the Vaush pit.

This is my fourth chapter. Below are linked my previous entries (as I want this to be peer reviewed prior to publishing of course)

Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/1dd3neo/vaush_quotes_that_live_rent_free_in_my_head/

Part 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/1pu0as0/vaush_quotes_that_live_rent_free_in_my_head_part_2/

Part 3: https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/1sncg9v/vaush_quotes_that_live_rent_free_in_my_head_part_3/

1: While debating Yankiee Tankie

Vaush: Do you have any idea how many bombs we gave to Laos for free?

2: Vaush: Mincraft has no 'progression.' It's a game that people play to distract themselves from the sound of their parents fighting over whether or not they should have been born.

3: During a meltdown where Vaush is banning lots of people

Vaush: So when I say 'purge' I know the mods think in terms of bans, but actually what we really need are truncheons and dark cellars.

4: During Dark Souls boss rankings, and explaining that all the bosses we beat don't 'die' but instead go hollow.

Vaush: Yeah guys, I don't wanna ruin the image for you, but like after you beat Nameless King he's still around, he's just spending his time bumping into a dumpster behind an Arby's now.

5: Viewing a woman who voted for trump and pissed at him.

Woman: I voted for him three times because I'm a fucking idiot!

Chat: We should be nice to this lady, she understands her mistake.

Vwooush: Fuck this lady. She was in favor of a gun being put to her head, she was in favor of the trigger being pulled, but now she's objecting to the bullet hitting her brain.

6: Chat catastrophising everything that could go wrong after Mamdani wins

Vaush: This is what I hate about the left. When conservatives win they're like "YEAH! We get to kill more black people!" But when the left wins it's like "Okay... i guess i'll put off the suicide for a few more days..."

7: Watching a deposition where an investigator is questioning someone about the inhuman holding conditions in internment camps for migrants (From trump's first term I think)

Vaush: If you guys are waiting for some sign of human decency it's not going to show up here. Morally speaking this is the equivalent of a red laser beam vs a blue laser beam. It's that simple.

8: Chat user disagrees with Vaush

Vaush: Say 'psyche' right now! You have 10 seconds to type 'psyche' in chat or your getting banned.

9: Chat: I like the part in the bible where the fish swallows the guy.

Vwoosh: I-I bet in Israel they don't even do that! I bet there people swallow fish! It's nothing like the Bible!

10: Noncompete: Maybe the Nazis had a point! Maybe the Nazis had a point! Maybe the - maybe the - maybe the - maybe the - maybe the Nazis had a point!

VwOUch: Are you insulting my WAIF??! MY WAIF! MY WAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIF! MY WAAIF!

Hi everyone, I'm reading through Kotkin's monster of a Stalin biography and I'm at a part where it seems that the issue of the role of former tsartist officials in the new Bolshevik state/army is a matter of contention for the new Communist regime. I'm asking this question here because while Kotkin's biography is great, it goes into so much painstaking detail that I sometimes find it hard to tell what parts or issues he describes are the most important. So here are my questions for you:

1: Was the issue of whether or not former people who worked in the tsarist state/military could be 'trusted?'

2: Was this an issue that would plague the Soviets for a long time?

3: Who counted as an 'official?' The tsarist government must have employed hundreds of thousands of people across the Russian Empire, maybe even millions of people. Were they all suspect? Technicians, engineers, census takers, etc?

4: How 'legitimate' was this worry? I'm speaking as someone who has lived in a stable western democracy for all my life, so this question might very well be based on my own ignorance. But it's hard for me to imagine a bunch of pencil pushers and bean counters being a threat to the state given these people tend to just do what they're told by the people above them.

First, this doesn't make the trilogy bad or anything. It's just a flaw that I've noticed after playing it several times.

Despite doing a good job of showing the ineptitude, corruption, and toadyism of politicians, it never shows the flip side that - and this is correct even if you feel as though it's not - that actually sometimes politicians and political action is *exactly* what you need, and that they can be proactive vehicles for good.

I remember I was speaking with someone on one of these two reddits about it, and they said one of the stupidist things I've ever heard. "Yeah, but that's the point the story is making these games. In the galaxy/Thedas there is too much politics, not enough action." Which is utter nothing speak.

And you can see this in how the council is treated in ME1. I know they're basically the butt of jokes, but I've always felt that the game (and all of you) were way too hard on the council for not immediately believing the human who had their brain scrambled by alien tech who woke up saying that Lovecrafitan monsters from beyond the void were coming to kill them all. (Even though they show themselves as unforgivably delusional in ME2).

It makes sense that the trilogy did this, because this whole attitude ass end of the Bush and Obama years, and it's especially easy to believe now. That politicians were either stupid (like the council) or that anyone who wanted political power must be an asshole (Udina), and appealing to that childish idea that 'only those who don't want power should have it' (Anderson). And for so fucking long I've believed this brainrot take too.

I can't really blame ME for having this idea. But when I think of examples like FDR, Abraham Lincoln, LBJ, Bernie Sanders, or our very own Zohran-Giga-Chad-Mamdani, you know what I realize? We fucking need politicians to make the world better.

Hungry, and even morally compromised politicians. Sometimes to fix something you need to play dirty. To end slavery sometimes you need to lie to Congress or bribe people with money/promises of cushy jobs. Sometimes to fight a war on poverty and enact a Great Society Program, you need an guy who will bully and flash his massive penis to his underlings and will 100% use racial slurs when speaking to other racist politicians to get them on your side if you want to sign the civil rights act. And you need people who want political power to some degree to do this, not just people who reluctantly accept it.

You know what would have been really cool? If Udina had of actually been a big help in ME3 in some way. Not that he suddenly became a good person, or a bleeding heart, or anything like that. But that when the Reaper war came he was able to make a genuine contribution to the war effort. And that all of his shady underhandedness did put him in a position to make some kind of contribution to the war effort (We actually do see a little bit of this in your convo with him during your first visit to the Citadel)

Every now and again I come across memes were Jones is featured, and obviously not in a way that endorses the man but makes fun of how absurd and over the top he is. I still know people who will insist on sharing clips and going "Dude! This is crazy!! Come check this this INSANE thing that this guy said!" And I just find these memes really tiring, and very sad. For three basic reasons:

1: When you hear about the sheer hell that Jones put the families of the Sandy Hook kids through, he and everything about him stops being funny. Jones isn't a cooky clown anymore, he's just one more asshole who should be wearing prison pyjamas but he isn't because rich and well-connected people don't face consequences for their actions.

2: He's not funny when you think about the world that he helped build. He helped turn conspiratorial nonsense into the mainstream, and helped laid the foundation for a world were people rejected taking a vaccine for a disease that killed millions of people. Or hell, just outright rejected the existence of said disease and helped fight measures that were meant to save lives.

3: It's not 2016 anymore. Mainstream political and journalistic figures can now openly say insane or racist shit. Hearing crazy talk isn't funny, or novel anymore. It's just normal now. Before he got sent to hell Kirk could just openly endorse the neo-nazi 'Great replacement' conspiracy theory, and talk about how whites were being replaced by the hordes of unwashed brown immigrants. (Yes, this is exactly what he was doing when he called London a 'captured city.')

sigh

I miss 2014...