Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Oh yeah, when he goes into "narrative mode" with his reads and clips, historically he flipped scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I would advise new York officials to maybe stop doing all wasteful spending and they will have enough money to do things this tax on the poor was meant for.
Fat chance, the mass transit is insolvent forever under their whip.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
Guess only idiots know what a federal road is these days.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's a federal road bro, do you believe in State secession or not?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
He was against illegal invasions, so they weaponized the justice dept to get him.
All it takes is an indictment for the Governor to remove him, and evidence isn't necessary.
We are talking about New York where it's normal to convict someone of a felony for an unspecified crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
He could just as easily be persuaded by the establishment to return to business as usual, or by some flight of fancy could persuade himself.
Just as likely that he will forget the establishment shot a bullet near his head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Your god awful take on post 85 shows you are either scum, or an idiot. I will be kind and say the former. It's more likely scum would spin a false narrative.
VTL BARNEY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's such a losing issue for New York, because inevitably, it will look like shuffling the poor into the unsafe subways while the royalty gets to use the royal highways.
Most presidents wouldn't give a fuck if a blue state becomes even more unequal and exploits wealth inequalities, but Trump has a soft spot for New York.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
This is all the mod gave me:
(no essay)
New Role:
I am the The Bio-Engineer (Playing God with Mortality)
My ability: Once per game, can swap the roles of two players.
My ability: Once per game, can swap the roles of two players.
I asked if I could try to swap back and he said the ability was used up....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
No lol, the mod specifically said I was not allowed to know what it did...I know it's fkn weird but I am brutally honest, and you know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm convinced either Barney or Savant was the role thief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
My essay:
Everything seems to keep evolving into crabs. Could there be a spiritual element to this? Like a final form we all evolve to?...some more ramblings..
(some links to an article)
My character is carcinization, my role is Crab God, I win with the town, and I do not get to know what the crab God does
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
post 85 was me being angry at a silent role thief. Are you that bitch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Someone stole my crab role last night...I am no longer the crab god...instead, I got their role which was a 1x Bio-Engineer (Playing God with Mortality)
Once per game, they can swap the roles of two players.
Once per game, they can swap the roles of two players.
The mod gave me some vague description of the crab god, in that my role was passive, I could move side to side, but nobody leaves he bucket.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Yes, The principle most libertarians would say is that your bodily autonomy ends where your fist meets my face.
And abortion is a powerful gut punch.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Could be the coin. Depends on how unserious you want to be today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
We almost got Kamala. Mencken would have been double happy. Double plus good happy to be exact.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Exactly, Republicans will be as tyrannical as the Democrats were. Just give it time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Should I reveal what happened last night, or wait a little longer for someone to come forward with the knowledge they must know I know?
Created:
You know you hit rock bottom when the deep state decides you are garbage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
DOGE is about revenge
maybe they should have gone for the head...
Created:
To someone Plato's cave looking at state media shadows, yes it is meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Let me know if you think enough time has passed for everyone t post, because I think I know who one of the scum is (if it isn't savant)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Could Savant have been scum? what's with the ???? on the role?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Also...unless savant is the person I am thinking of...there should be a player alive today that can confirm my role...speak up bitch!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
A national sales tax is the best. The rich can't weasel out of it, and they will have to spend it at some point.
Congress will never let it happen because they get paid for passing tax exemptions for the rich.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
He now knows that to accomplish his unconstitutional goals he needs to surround himself with the scum of the earth, just like him.
So he surrounds himself with activist judges that cause constitutional crises. Good to know.
Created:
-->
@Shila
the type of body that has to be established through an act of Congress and typically employs thousands of staff.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order (E.O.) titled “Establishing andImplementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’” (DOGE), which reorganized an entity in the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the U.S. Digital Service, as the U.S. DOGE Service,using the same acronym as its predecessor (USDS).
The United States Digital Service (USDS) is a technology unit[3][4] housed within the Executive Office of the President of the United States and established by Congressional appropriations.
Your algorithm is contradictory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I think you are very confused about how plastic straws are used.
Very funny!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
We spend 3x per day per student to get near the worst education in the world.
More spending on a corrupt system just makes it more corrupt. You fix the deficit by removing the corrupt system.
You say it's unpopular, but it's only really unpopular with the people benefitting from a corrupt system. 80% of Americans are fine with destroying corrupt systems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
But if GP was a TP, he would say he was.
This is true. I am the most honest mafia player ever.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The department of defense wasn't invented to help 50.1% of the country.
You are right, it was invented to help the 1 percenters investing in forever wars and defense stocks.
The department of education wasn't invented to help 50.1% of the country.
You are right, it was invented to secure the vote of teachers who are 1% of the population.
The department of agriculture wasn't invented to help 50.1% of the country.
You are right, it was invented to secure the vote of farmers who are 3% of the population.
Trump has so rotted your brains into thinking everything in politics is us vs them that you all forgot or are just to ignorant to have ever understood why we have a government in the first place.
Correct, Trump has rotted your brain with TDS to the point that you support unaccountability and waste and fraud.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The role of the government is to look out for the interests of the whole.
In a Democracy, they look after 50.1% of the whole. That's why the government fails for so many people.
Created:
-->
@Shila
That was exactly what Trump wants to do. Extend the tax cuts and increase the spending limit for his second term.
Fake news. DOGE doesn't need tax cuts or increased debt to accomplish its mission.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Trump is now loyal to Maga, which is why he only hires Maga now instead of hiring non-Maga in 2016.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Lol you have it backwards. He demands himself to hire people who share his beliefs. He can't force people to work for him.
He used to hire his enemies, and now he has changed.
Created:
-->
@Shila
LOYALTY, which derives from the Latin root word lex, or law, has as one meaning that of being allegiant or faithful to recognized authority, whereas obedience means willingness to obey or submit to authority.
The modern definition of loyalty has evolved considerably from its etymological roots. While the fundamental concept of being "faithful" or "allegiant" remains consistent, the specific connotations and applications of the term have shifted over time.
The word loyalty is derived from the Latin root lex, which means law. In its earliest usage, loyalty was strongly tied to the idea of adherence to laws or recognized authority. To be loyal, in the traditional sense, was to show allegiance to a leader, ruler, or law, often in the context of feudal or political systems. The word itself came from the Old French term loial, which meant "legal" or "lawful," and it was used to signify a subject's duty to be faithful to their monarch or lord.
This etymology points to a broader, more institutional view of loyalty. It was inherently tied to legal systems and hierarchical structures of power. Loyalty, in this sense, was an obligation dictated by law and social norms rather than a purely personal choice. A person who demonstrated loyalty was considered to be adhering to a legal or social contract, and their loyalty was not so much a matter of personal affection or emotional connection but more of a duty or obligation.
In contrast, the modern definition of loyalty has expanded and become more flexible. While the concept of allegiance to authority still exists, today's understanding of loyalty is often not exclusively about following laws or external commands. Loyalty, in contemporary usage, is more commonly understood as a personal or emotional commitment to people, causes, institutions, or ideals.
Whereas loyalty in its traditional sense was directly tied to social and political structures—such as loyalty to a monarch, nation, or ruler—the modern definition can apply to a much broader range of relationships and contexts. For instance, people can be loyal to their families, friends, companies, sports teams, or even abstract causes, without any legal or formal obligation to do so. In this sense, loyalty has become more individualized and emotional, often reflecting personal values and connections rather than mere compliance with a recognized authority or legal system.
This shift reflects a societal transformation where personal choice and individualism have become more prominent. Loyalty is no longer automatically seen as something that arises from a duty to a recognized authority, but instead as something that can be freely chosen and voluntarily expressed. The modern sense of loyalty places greater emphasis on personal bonds, trust, and emotional investment, which are often the result of mutual respect or shared experiences.
Key Differences:
- Authority vs. Choice: Etymologically, loyalty was tied to the obedience to a higher power or authority (e.g., a monarch or legal system), while modern loyalty is more often a personal choice, based on emotional connections or mutual respect.
- Legal vs. Emotional: Historically, loyalty was often linked with legal or societal obligations—being loyal meant being faithful to laws or social contracts. Today, loyalty can be more emotional or relational, meaning being loyal to people, brands, or causes, even in the absence of a formal obligation.
- Institutional vs. Personal: In its earlier sense, loyalty was institutional and had a formal, hierarchical context, whereas now it can be expressed in personal relationships or abstract ideals, such as loyalty to friends or family, which have no basis in legal authority.
In conclusion, while loyalty still retains a fundamental connection to faithfulness and allegiance, its modern application has moved away from strict legal or hierarchical structures and instead focuses more on personal choice, emotional connection, and mutual commitment. This shift reflects broader societal changes in how we perceive authority, relationships, and personal values.
Created:
-->
@Shila
lol your definitions are contradictory. Loyalty requires the opposite of coercion. You have compliance with the use of zero force.
Fairness must always require coercion by definition, otherwise the system was already absolutely intrinsically fair, and did not need any fair modifiers, thus there is no level of fairness or unfairness...
The very concept of fairness, while universally celebrated as an inherent virtue, is often subject to various interpretations depending on its context and the particular needs of the individuals or groups involved. Indeed, the notion of fairness can be seen as a product of both moral philosophy and practical governance, often intersecting with legal and ethical systems that regulate and maintain the social order. However, it is crucial to understand that fairness, by its very nature, is a concept that demands intervention, regulation, and enforcement for its realization. It cannot be fully actualized without coercion. This brings us to the paradoxical yet irrefutable assertion that fairness, by definition, necessitates coercion; without coercive mechanisms, fairness would be rendered superfluous, as it would already be realized in a state of natural equilibrium. Thus, to achieve fairness, it is not merely enough to declare it as a principle but to institute a system of enforcement that ensures its application, making coercion an indispensable instrument of fairness.
At its most basic level, fairness is often understood as the quality of being free from bias, favoritism, or injustice in the treatment of individuals or groups. It is inherently tied to the concepts of equality and impartiality, positing that individuals ought to be treated with equal regard, their interests weighed equally, and their claims considered without prejudice. These ideals underpin many moral and legal systems, forming the foundation of laws and social expectations in democratic societies. From the ancient Greeks to contemporary philosophers, fairness has been a topic of significant discourse.
The classical philosophers, notably Plato and Aristotle, began framing fairness in terms of justice. In Plato’s Republic, fairness is an essential component of a well-ordered society, where the ideal state operates under a principle of distributive justice. This justice, however, is not simply about giving everyone the same, but rather giving each person what they are due, considering their individual roles and contributions to the society. Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, presented a more nuanced view of fairness, emphasizing the balance between extremes and the maintenance of the mean in distributing goods, honor, and resources. His ideas led to the conception of proportional fairness—everyone receiving what they merit, based on their needs or contributions.
In modern times, fairness is often equated with the concept of equal treatment, as exemplified in various civil rights movements that advocate for the equitable treatment of marginalized groups. From the American Civil Rights Movement to contemporary discussions of gender equality and economic justice, fairness is the central principle driving calls for societal change. However, it becomes increasingly clear that fairness is not merely a matter of abstract ideals but something that requires structural and institutional enforcement to ensure its implementation. Without mechanisms to enforce fairness, societies would likely slip back into the state of inequality and injustice that fairness seeks to remedy.
The pivotal question we now must confront is: if fairness is a universal good, why does it need coercion for its realization? To answer this question, we must first explore the nature of fairness in its ideal form and contrast it with the reality of human behavior, social dynamics, and the distribution of power. Fairness, by definition, seeks to alter or regulate the natural state of affairs when those affairs are perceived as unjust or unequal. In other words, fairness is a correction of the status quo, one that strives to achieve a better, more equitable condition.
However, human nature and societal structures are far from naturally fair. People, often driven by self-interest, will pursue their own advantage, sometimes at the expense of others. In such a system, inequality and injustice are not merely possible; they are practically inevitable. Without external intervention, the forces of competition, power, and hierarchy would work to perpetuate these imbalances, creating systems of oppression and exploitation. In such an environment, fairness cannot thrive unassisted. Therefore, fairness must be enforced through mechanisms that exert control over individuals’ behavior, incentivizing compliance with the standards of fairness that society has set forth.
Coercion, in this sense, is not necessarily synonymous with violence or brute force. Rather, it encompasses the broader concept of enforcing compliance with societal norms and rules through a variety of means, including legal sanctions, economic penalties, and even social ostracism. Laws, taxes, social policies, and regulations all function as tools of coercion, ensuring that individuals and groups conform to the collective desire for fairness. These tools exist precisely because, in their absence, there would be no guarantee that fairness would be realized, as individuals might revert to behavior that maximizes their personal gain, disregarding the collective welfare.
For example, consider the progressive tax system. It is widely regarded as a means of achieving fairness in economic distribution, where those with higher incomes are required to contribute a larger share of their earnings to support public goods and services. Without the coercive power of taxation, the wealthiest individuals and corporations would have little incentive to contribute to the welfare of society, exacerbating social inequality. In this case, coercion is the vehicle through which fairness is made possible, as it forces the rich to contribute more proportionally to society’s well-being than they would otherwise voluntarily do.
Similarly, laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation serve to enforce fairness by preventing individuals and institutions from engaging in behavior that perpetuates social inequality. These laws are backed by the coercive power of the state, which can impose fines, penalties, or even imprisonment on those who violate them. In this instance, coercion ensures that fairness is not a mere ideal but a practical reality that impacts people’s lives in tangible ways.
Note that fairness cannot be a mere abstract principle that exists without reference to the broader social context in which it is applied. Without coercion, fairness would lack a tangible framework within which to be realized. Indeed, the mere declaration of fairness does not bring about fairness; the mechanisms of enforcement must be present for fairness to become a living, functioning principle within society. This is why, when we see calls for the elimination of coercion in the form of taxation or regulation, we must question whether fairness can truly exist in such an environment.
If fairness did not require coercion, it would imply that individuals would always act in accordance with what is just and equitable without the need for external enforcement. However, this idealized vision of human behavior is unrealistic, as history has shown time and again that humans are predisposed to act in their own self-interest, often at the expense of others. The very existence of legal and political systems is a testament to the need for external structures that impose order and regulate behavior, particularly when it comes to issues of fairness.
In a society where fairness is simply a matter of mutual consent or voluntary adherence, there would be little distinction between those who benefit from the system and those who suffer. Without coercive measures to ensure that fairness is upheld, the playing field would remain uneven, and the powerful would continue to dominate the less fortunate. Thus, fairness, by its very definition, must be enforced by coercion, as it is only through such enforcement that social equity can be achieved.
That fairness requires coercion is a necessary corollary of the very nature of fairness itself. Fairness seeks to rectify imbalances in society, addressing issues of inequality and injustice. However, the natural state of affairs is often one of inequity, where individuals act in their self-interest, perpetuating systems of oppression and exploitation. In such a context, fairness cannot be realized without external intervention. Coercion, whether through legal measures, taxation, or regulation, is the means by which fairness is enforced, ensuring that all individuals and groups are held accountable to the principles of equality and justice.
In a world without coercion, fairness would be reduced to a mere ideal—something to which society aspires but cannot attain. To achieve fairness, it must be actively regulated, corrected, and enforced. It is through these means that fairness can be made a living, functioning principle, ensuring that those who would otherwise be marginalized or oppressed are given the equitable treatment they deserve. Without coercion, fairness remains an unattainable dream, a lofty concept that, in its absence, fails to make any tangible impact on the real-world dynamics of power and inequality.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Liberals care about harm and fairness (individualizing values), whereas conservatives care more about loyalty, authority, and sanctity (binding values).
Fairness requires authority much more than loyalty requires authority. You statement is contradictory.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
"it is only the artists who have taught us how to estimate the hero that is concealed in each of these common-place men, and the art of looking at ourselves from a distance as heroes, and as it were simplified and transfigured,—the art of "putting ourselves on the stage" before ourselves. It is thus only that we get beyond some of the paltry details in ourselves! Without that art we should be nothing but fore-ground, and would live absolutely under the spell of the perspective which makes the closest and the commonest seem immensely large and like reality in itself."
Nietzsche has a really interesting take on Plato's cave allegory. He suggests we can use art to shortcut the limitations of the cave, allowing us to grow beyond the normal constraints. But there is also the danger of getting wrapped up in the art to such an extent that you become a caricature of reality. There should always be a balance.
Created: