lord of flies

Q: Are you two guys liberal or conservative? Me and my friends have had debates about this. TREY: We avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives and we hate them [conservatives]. MATT: I hate conservatives but I really ****ing hate liberals. Rightist piece of ****, like I said.

Hey guys, I've collected scientific evidence that you should never, ever play this game. Warning: spoilers, but seriously, nothing important. Source: Leaked SWTOR script. Vette: I'm done talking to you. Take the collar off or go away. John Sith: I'll never take that collar off. Vette: Fine. You know what? I'm getting used to it anyway. I might even buy a nice pair of matching boots. John Sith: Do you enjoy this as much as I do? [shock Vette] Vette: Okay, I can't take this anymore. Vette: Look, I throw myself on your mercy or whatever. Vette: Please, just please remove this collar. John Sith : Let me see if I can find the right button. [shock Vette] Vette: But I'm going to die from this. Don't you understand? John Sith: Hardly seems lethal, does it? I could do this all day... [shock Vette] Vette: I never knew evil was so petty until I met you. John Sith: How is this? Better or worse? [shock Vette] --LATER-- Vette: Okay, hey, Sith master person of questionable temper and such? Vette: I've been extra good with the behaving. Did you notice? Vette: So how about taking this shock collar off of me? John Sith: How about some pain instead? [shock Vette] Vette: How about some non-obedience sort of following directions? Like a person, instead of a pet? John Sith: Looks like my pet still needs training. [shock Vette] Vette: That hurts! Do you not get that? John Sith: I enjoy this. [shock Vette] Vette: Argh! You drekki-- no. I won't let you bait me. Lead on, I'll be following like a good slave. John Sith: Learn to control your inane commentary and there will be less pain. Vette: Fine, fine. lead on oh Sith of Siths. Far be it for this wretched slave to take up more of your time. --STILL LATER-- Vette: So, hey, I've been thinking... maybe you want to take this shock collar off? Vette: You know, as a sign of thanks for my hard work on Korriban? Vette: Not that I don't enjoy the perpetual fear of electrocution. John Sith: You will do as I say and not ask for favors. Vette: Yeah, that's a real keen idea and all but what do I get out of it? John Sith: Each day is a present from me to you. Be grateful. Vette: Gee, thanks. John Sith: I gave you a chance. You are a slow learner. [shock Vette] Vette: Ow! Forget I said anything! --LATER STILL-- (after you have to take the collar off) Vette: Hey. Vette: Don't worry. I'm not going to get silly again. I've had time to think. Vette: It's not my place to judge why you're attracted to me. I just have to decide if you treat me like I want to be treated. John Sith: We're not here for long discussions, Vette. You want to be my girl then you do what I say, when I say it. Vette: Yeah. See? That fails the whole "treat me like I want to be treated" test. Fails bad. John Sith: You're not the one setting the terms here. Vette: You are in for a rude awakening, oh Lord of Mine. John Sith: It doesn't have to be complicated. [Kiss Her] Vette: Wow. Okay. Yes. That. Vette: All right. More of that later. For now, um, back to business, yes? --AFTER MUCH BULL**** COMPANION QUEST CRAP, IF YOU'VE EVER PLAYED A BIOWARE GAME YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT-- Vette: Do you--do you love me? John Sith: I like you. And there are things I love about you... Vette: Right. Not so good with the bold statements. Believe me, I get it. Vette: I need you to know... there haven't been any other men. Ever. Vette: I promised my mother I'd be married first. About the only promise I managed to keep. John Sith : We should express our love however we want. Societal rules are for other people. Vette: I am other people. Not a Sith, not even Imperial. Just a girl. Vette: So do you want to marry me? Yes or no? John Sith Warrior: Sounds like it could be fun. Let's get ourselves married. Vette: I guess that's the best I'm getting. --LATER-- Vette: Okay, don't laugh. Some of the Twi'lek marriage ceremony stuff is pretty goofy but it'll only take a couple hours... --EVER SO SLIGHTLY LATER-- Vette: There it is. Married. John Sith: I behaved myself all the way through that crazy ceremony. Vette: Very proud of you. John Sith: Now that we're official I guess the romance will disappear pretty fast. Vette: You are crazy. We still haven't gotten to the best part. Vette: For now, things of galactic importance await as always, yes? Vette: We should plan to clear the ship out for some private time soon. Vette: Yes, send everyone out to find a Force-sensitive k'lor'slug or something. --MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LATER-- John Sith: You wanted to talk? Vette: More than talk. I told the crew to get lost for a few hours. Just you, me, and an empty ship. John Sith: What were you thinking we might do in those hours, wife? Vette: I might surprise you. I found my old shock collar the other day... come on. --GRACEFUL FADE TO BLACK-- Vette: So worth the wait. We'll have to set aside a few hours every day... Vette: Don't worry, I'll get Quinn to put it on your schedule. Vette: Just so you know, I'm here for the long term. Vette: Whether that means more apprentices in the future or us adopting our own little hoard. Vette: Through apprentices trying to kill you and all the rest of the crazy, I'll be here.

Haha, good one, you had me going for a second. Obsidian making a South Park game? That would be pretty ridiculous. I gotta admit, I laughed a little in real li-- Wait, this is a real thing? This is a real thing? They're - they're really making... They're really making a goddamn ****ing South Park video game. A video game based on a ****ty, horribly offensive, rightist piece of mindless middle trash TV show? *vomits in mouth a little* This... just... what the ****. I can't believe you did this. I literally can't believe it! Is there some sort of Californian December Fool's Day thing going on here??

10% is really, really high, actually. Like, you might get it in 2011/2012 (assuming we recover from the slump that has been Q1/Q2 2011 right now, rather than nosediving into a second recession), but overall? No. From like, 1920, large cap stocks have made about an 8% increase per year average. Small cap are a little higher, ~10%, but much more volatile. This isn't how buying shares works, FYI. The present value of the dividend is always going to be calculated into the dirty price, so you'll be paying like $19.98 on a $20 dividend. Further, what's your plan if a stock significantly declines in value? (Go for trailing stops) AAAAAAH!!! 40% in one company? Holy ****, what the hell are you doing?? Jesus, sell! Sell! I don't care if the stock is in The Meek, Inc and Jesus Christ came back to Earth! Don't invest so much money like this! Are you comfortable losing 40% of your investment because it turns out ASX:TLS is cooking the books? No? Then get the **** out of there. Jesus.

Yes, exactly. "I was just following orders" didn't work for concentration camp guardsmen, why would it work for French authorities under the occupation? Look, I hate the English as much as the next guy, but calling Britain a dark corner of the world might be going a bit too... wait, are you using the term "dark corners of this world" to describe a huge swath of non-white, non-Christian countries as a blanket terminology? And their people as "imports," as though they were literal products that were imported to Europe? I suppose the latter is true historically, but really? Really man? It is the 21st century, let's stop referring to other countries as "dark corners of this world."

Ah yes, the Muslims. I might mention the degree to which many Christians in the USA think much the same thing, but what's the point? Different conceptions of the place of religion in a society are cultural, not intrinsic to that religion. Look at Turkey and the Papal State to see what I mean. Which one feels that their majority religion should have a larger say in the behavior of the state, both foreign and domestic? "I was just following orders" may be powerful, but it is generally not considered to be an excuse anymore, not since - you guessed it! - WW2.

Yes really. The bit you cited in that was under A) A nazi puppet government (basically) in southern france and B) the Nazi government itself. NOT the french under their own controls. lol. well, i guess that means the french didn't do anything at all to jews. you're right. referring to "jews in france before the holocaust" makes no sense. just what

Really, the French did jack to the Jews in the first place? Really? Out of curiousity, can you name or recall a single, specific case of a Muslim man forcing a woman to wear the niqab in the West, or are you just regurgitating stereotypes that you've had spoon-fed to you by the media?

Not really shoehorning when you consider that one of the people who harassed them said "We'll do to you what we did to the Jews." Yes, except that before the burqa ban many women wore niqabs and faced comparatively little discrimination (as they themselves noted), while after it the discrimination exploded. This is a worsening of bigotry, not some kind of universalized ****fest. Integration under threat is not integration at all. You do realize that both Ahmas and Stephanie grew up in France and chose to wear the niqab quite late in life in both cases? As the article says: "Ahmas grew up in and around Paris, where her father, born in Morocco, worked as a town-hall gardener. Her parents were not strict Muslims. She put on the niqab six years ago as an educated single woman who once wore mini-skirts and liked partying, but then rediscovered her faith." "[stephanie] converted at 17 and put on the niqab several years later, long before meeting her husband. Her North African parents-in-law didn't like her wearing full-veil, and the marriage ended." Portraying this as "dogmatically sticking with the old ways" is ridiculous. They are choosing to wear a symbol of their faith, and a particularly powerful one at that.

France's burqa ban: women are 'effectively under house arrest'

This is just circular logic. "These must be your alts because they are your alts." I rarely post here anymore, or even read anything, serious post. This is the only account I use, serious post. I get tired of your **** even quicker than you get tired of mine. Especially because of your tinfoil-hat tendency to group me together with half-a-dozen other posters on flimsy grounds.

Uh, no? Oby's a Russian nationalist, while I think Putin's ****? Can't you differentiate between a non-American nationalist and a non-nationalist American? That's a quote of a line of the Soviet National Anthem. Specifically, one dealing with its unbreakable union. I can't read Russian.

Yeah, it's hard to understand why we assume you are just a silly troll account and not a legitimate member of this community. Does someone hold a gun to your head and force you to come back here? Why, does someone do that to you?

Stop acting like we're the same person you mother****er. I swear to God, the degree to which you people are incapable of even imagining that there are two (or three, or four) people who happen to have different opinions from you is ridiculous. That's also not me. I leave this boring ass forum for a month or whatever and every time I come back, you're desperately insisting that I'm part of some ridiculous hive mind. It was amusing when you all got bothered about whose account I "really" was, but now that you've actually decided to stretch some kind of ridiculous conspiracy where I have - four, is it? or did someone new reg and get declared part of my hivemind? - it's just ****ing tiresome. Cycloneman is some guy, I guess he's a little to the left, Oby is some Russian nationalist, and that other guy whose name I forgot spent a lot more time and effort on his posts than I ever did (the big ones, I just stole from other sources). Too bad a certain country has had a net role of adding more dictatorships to the world! (that country's name is Britain) (also the United States does it too I guess) Gasp, let's use this as an excuse to arrest all black people in Libya. The TSA called, they want their ridiculous logic for racial profiling back.

Holy ****, who the **** cares?? My god, American politicians controlling the language use over some solitary high-fatality event from ten ****ing years ago? What's next? Maybe they'll do something worthwhile for once in their ****ing lives??

Look. Look at how dumb you are. Just look at how dumb you are.

Late? Why am I late? Was I banned or something?

I'm not ****ing Obyknven, stop with this ****. I don't talk about 'warlike races' or other nationalist bull****. Oby is a perfectly normal Russian nationalist, whereas I am an American revolutionary socialist. I would never describe modern Russia as "awesome," except in the sense that at least it isn't currently bombing 5-6 countries (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia). It's still a ****ty country that replaced a large part of the ~glorious Soviet Union~ and Putin is a right-wing autocrat. The fact that we both hold heterodox opinions doesn't make us the same person, and this forums' insistence on it is just making you look bad!

On the other hand, photographs of impossibly pretty girls - jokes to the contrary aside - are not addictive. I wouldn't seek them out. If tomorrow all photographs of impossibly pretty girls vanished, such that I looked up at billboards and the women there were largely unretouched, I looked at magazine covers and the women there hadn't been photoshopped beyond the pale, I watched ads and the women looked normal, well, I might notice, but I wouldn't go "My god! I've got to get my hands on photoshopped pictures of ladies!" like someone who regularly takes recreational drugs or whatever. This isn't filling some need. It isn't making me happy. It isn't helping me make positive decisions. It isn't increasing my access to truth. It's just making hundreds of young women die each year.

I have thought about this for a while. In large part, I'd say, my current formulations are a response to incorrect ideas on the subject (mainly Eliezer Yudkowsky's). First of all, what we consider 'choice' is really the deterministic product of environment and biology. If I'm completely honest, I never picked out my political opinions. I didn't go down to the corner store and search through all the different variants on fascism, anarchism, liberalism, feudalism and other ideas before finally settling on vanguardist revolutionary socialism. My formative experiences are varied, and they aren't all things I'm proud of. It wasn't all "I read about rapid industrialization in the USSR, which pointed me towards socialism." Some of it was fairly stupid, some of it was extraordinarily stupid, but I wound up with these ideas and I'm pretty sure they're right and rejecting an idea because the process that lead to it was not completely rational isn't going to get me any closer to the truth. My point is, we don't choose what we choose to do. We didn't pick who we would be. We were saddled with it, at one point or another. Maybe we were born this way, or raised this way, or taught this way, or obtained information that lead us this way, but the point is that we didn't get here on our own. This leads to something else, some other logical conclusion: the privileging of (the perception of) choice is just another instance of the privileging of what already is. The media is biased. Our educational system is biased. We are biased, intrinsically. I am biased to avoid closing my eyes while taking the stairs, I am biased to not shove my arm down a garbage disposal, I am biased not to walk off a building. The solution is not to support these biases over all others simply because they happen to be our biases right now. The solution is to craft biases that are socially constructive: biases that encourage life and pleasure, that discourage death and pain. Where is this all going? It's meandering a bit, I'll admit, so I'll get back on track. Suppose you have the choice to live in two societies. In both societies, technology has provided us with two amazing, magical potions. One causes painful death. The other cures all diseases. In one society, you can only purchase the cure-all, while the painful death potion is illegal (it is also not produced or sold anywhere at all, for this society is very effective at stopping such things). In the other society, you can buy either, but you are misinformed as to which is the cure-all. Which one would you choose to live in? Well, that's obvious: the one where you won't get killed. Here is the thing, however: if you live in any society where both potions are legal, someone will be misinformed about which one is fatal. Some people have been told, taught, and genuinely believe, through no real fault of their own, that not wearing a seatbelt is safer. Others have been socialized to believe that crystals, or homeopathy, or acupuncture, or any one of a million other stupid things is more effective than traditional, scientific medicine. It's not their fault, they didn't choose to be misinformed, they didn't choose not to be exposed to information about how important it is to go look into scientific studies, they didn't choose to be taught by their friends or family that faith is good and scientific skepticism is bad. But they were, and now some of them are dead, because they got acupuncture when they needed chemo, got homeopathy when they needed antibiotics, got prayer when they needed a doctor. Excepting the possibility of some absurdly thorough methodology, allowing people to choose between A and B - where A is good and B is bad - is going to get people hurt, or made unhappy, or even dead. And the marginal advantage that choosing (or being able to choose) to suck down water that is one part per million snake venom in a desperate attempt to cure your cancer provides, does not even begin to compare to the advantage that not dying provides. This whole long post has ignored utilitarian concerns about "paternalism," because that's not my point. I believe, for example, that most drugs should be legalized, because regulated and controlled drugs will be better for the public health than illegal drugs. But that's not because I want people to choose, or be able to choose, to do drugs. It's because I want people to not be hurt by drug gang violence in Latin America, by drugs that were cut with rat poison, by dealers pushing hard drugs on users of soft drugs, and by a million other negative effects that come from drug illegalization. I don't want to assume that giving people a choice is better. I don't want to assume that giving people no choice is worse. I want to make an analysis and come to a conclusion for every choice on everything, and it seems that for an awful lot of choices there's quite a few that are obviously bad. For a very serious example: censorship. Letting people choose to consume media that is socially harmful - by, say, portraying an extremely overidealized female form, leading to body image issues, leading in turn to public health epidemics of bulimia, anorexia and other negative eating behaviors - is a bad idea. Is the marginal benefit of allowing them to consume socially harmful media greater than the harm? Well, I'm pretty sure no one will die or be made particularly unhappy because they didn't see a picture of an airbrushed, heavily make-uped, photoshopped woman, so no. The only harm is to the employees and stockholders of corporations that benefit from this socially harmful behavior (cosmetics, dieting, etc), and I say **** them, their opinion simply isn't worth as much, their benefit simply isn't as great. They can find new jobs, women who die of anorexia because every picture in every magazine is photoshopped to the point of unrecognizability can't find new lives. If you disagree with my argument for censoring this method of portraying women because of utilitarian reasons, like that say there's this social advantage that you hadn't considered, or really there's not enough evidence to say that exposure to those images leads to negative eating behavior, then realize that you have also accepted that it is not an intrinsic quality that we should prefer to give people the choice to do X socially harmful thing. You've merely said this thing happens to not be socially harmful.

Ah, so it's mathematically proven that white people are more attractive. Thanks. A fairly in-depth pointing out of the way that the beauty mask you link is Eurocentric. PS: The ideal waist hip ratio varies between cultures, heavily.

If that

Your logic is ridiculous. I'm not a p-zombie reproducing cultural averages, therefore I'm not affected by media? That doesn't follow.

No man is an island.

Hey, hair grows places other than around a woman's vagina and on her head. Such as, say, her armpits. Yes, our society is infantilizing what it finds attractive in women. This is an overall tendency. Don't try to dismiss my argument with some handwave about how "disconnected" I am. He specifically said "my body influences me," that is to say, that it is an innate (nonsocialized) quality. The same reason that you hear black people complaining more about discrimination in the workplace than whites. The same reason you hear gay people complaining more about harassment because of their sexuality than straights.