ChockrickBear Gaming

This is an index page listing all posts for this sub-forum. Use your browser search (Ctrl+F) to find the desired post and click on it to go to the real forum.

General Discussion

ChockrickBearNov 22, 2021 7:00pm EST
[t]Appealing to authority is always a fallacy[/t]
A statement is not true simply because an expert said it. Truth is not established by authoritative decree, but by observation and logical deduction of reality. Remember, authority is a social construct, but reality is fixed. Appealing to authority relies on the assumption that the expert is making claims in good faith, which is not always the case when you consider that experts are still people with their own beliefs and ambitions. This is especially true in the soft sciences where there is room to insert ideology to guide interpretations and devise policy (e.g. whether equality between groups is the ideal outcome or whether gender should have any connection to sex). Even in the hard sciences, there is incentive to cut corners or protect intellectual property against competition.

Appealing to authority does not lay out a useful path of assertions that helps you understand the conclusion. It defers responsibility of defending your position and turns debate into a power game instead of a learning process. It is a sign that you don't actually understand or have confidence in the expert's arguments. If you did, you would be presenting them in your own words, unless you are trying to hide something. In the end, authority has no relevance to truth. It exists solely to inform you of who is most likely to present the strongest arguments. But if even the strongest arguments have holes, there is a good chance the expert is wrong.

The best way to deal with the appeal to authority is to know what the authority argued and deconstruct it. This shows that you know more about the subject than the appealer, and it discredits the authority being appealed to. But despite all of this, remember the fallacy fallacy. Even though appealing to authority is a fallacy, it does not always mean that the conclusion is wrong. Experts are generally more credible than the layman, but do not assume they are infallible, neutral, or even benevolent. Always consider different perspectives and construct your position based on what is the most complete and consistent with reality.
ChockrickBearDec 19, 2021 11:12pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought[/t]
Selfishness is the pursuit of wealth, altruism is the pursuit of power.
ChockrickBearDec 22, 2021 1:23pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 2[/t]
The sole purpose of collectivism is to obfuscate who gains at whose expense.
ChockrickBearDec 27, 2021 1:18pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 3[/t]
Belief in equality is merely postponing the inevitable decision of who you will choose over who.
ChockrickBearDec 28, 2021 1:11pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 4[/t]
To understand why someone would hate a large number of ordinary people, just look at a mob and imagine you're the target.
ChockrickBearJan 1, 2022 1:51am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 5[/t]
The standard villain wants to destroy society not because he is strong, but because he is in fact weak and marginalized. He hates society for insulting his character and not giving him the life he desires. His evil is not rooted in his belief in competitive hierarchy, but in his desire for revenge against the successful. In other words, evil is rooted in the desire for equality.
ChockrickBearJan 3, 2022 2:01am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 6[/t]
Objectification is how people develop sexual interest and become motivated to approach others. Humans are not telepathic, they cannot see inner beauty, nor is there any writer of reality who will set up ideal people and convenient circumstances for them, so they have to rely on outward indicators of desirability and be bold. In fact, outer beauty tends to reflect self-awareness, willpower to better themselves, and organized thinking. It is also intrinsically valuable to others, so being beautiful is about being prosocial by providing what others want. Inner ugliness tends to be reflected in outward appearance and expressions. Even a pretty face can be twisted by insanity.
ChockrickBearJan 3, 2022 1:09pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 7[/t]
The word, "genocide", has the same Greek base word as "gene", implying that genocide refers specifically to killing on the basis of genetically inherited characteristics. Genocide is not really about killing a large number of people as it is about the intent to eradicate certain genetic expressions. "Kill it before it lays eggs" is technically a genocidal idea, but killing half of a country because they hold different politics is not.
ChockrickBearJan 5, 2022 1:55pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 8[/t]
When leftists talk about equality, they do so with an image of a rich kid with lots of free time, and seek to be made equal to that. It is never about taking on equal responsibility to the parents as they see wealth providers as expendable.
ChockrickBearJan 7, 2022 1:40pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 9[/t]
Postmodern Neo-Marxism is not without merit, otherwise it wouldn't convince anyone. Some things people consider valuable is subjective and established by the social power of a few, amplified by ignorant groupthink. How many conservatives see video games as not real and a waste of time? Would they say the same about playing a musical instrument or sports? Should a gamer change himself to focus on "productive" activities, or should conservatives change themselves to appreciate games and create a market for them? Cultural revolution is justifiable if the dominant culture is based on closed-minded reasoning. Some things are only unproductive because you don't have the leadership to make it productive.
ChockrickBearJan 10, 2022 1:51pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 10[/t]
There is nothing magical about altruism. Its purpose is to buy good will, whether from the helped or those watching depending on who is considered more valuable to appease. Altruism that does not produce the desired returns will quickly dry up because meaningfully helping someone requires a long-term commitment of limited time, resources, and emotions that could be better spent on someone else.
ChockrickBearJan 14, 2022 12:06am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 11[/t]
Being offended is a sign of bad character. Truly good people better themselves through criticism.
ChockrickBearJan 14, 2022 1:30pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 12[/t]
Leftist economics is based on the assumptions that wealth is plentiful and perfectly transmutable. In reality, wealth is a lot more scarce than GDPs and stock markets suggest because you cannot just melt down a luxury car into a slurry of pure wealth and mold it into the healthcare someone needs. Money is not wealth, it is just an oversimplified number representing a fleeting promise of what you can hypothetically get with it. You cannot buy what no one has put in the specific resources and effort to create, and some things are far more difficult to produce than others, which is why wealth redistribution will not work as well as you think it would.
ChockrickBearJan 16, 2022 1:04pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 13[/t]
Character creators reveal how distorted your image of beauty really is. You can try to mold every feature to what you think is most beautiful. But if you don't have much experience, you will end up with a Frankenstein's monster that is racially ambiguous, lacking personality, and physically unhealthy. It reflects how much your mind is rife with gaps, contradictions, and fantastical ideals. My advice: Do not be afraid to give your girl some mass. She can be meaty without being fat.
ChockrickBearJan 17, 2022 4:28pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 14[/t]
Believing in God is not so much about believing in the supernatural as it is about disbelieving fallible human authorities who claim a monopoly on truth. There is no higher authority than the objective reality that was not designed by humans.
ChockrickBearJan 17, 2022 4:41pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 15[/t]
Atheists believe they can be moral without God, until they are faced with people who don't agree with them. After all, why should your morality take precedence over mine when morality is created by fiat? Why should we have laws that apply to everyone when there is no objective morality?
ChockrickBearJan 26, 2022 1:00pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 16[/t]
Happiness is the feeling of having power. Anger is the feeling of threatened power. Sadness is the feeling of lacking power. Human emotion is all about power.
ChockrickBearJan 27, 2022 2:34am EST
[t]Anti-work is an evil concept[/t]
You cannot be a good person and be anti-work. Work is, by nature, being in service to others, which requires the sacrifice of your time and energy to do what is needed, which is independent of how much work you subjectively want to do. Buying something imposes work on others to create the product and deliver it to you, which is why it is only fair that you work to satisfy them in return. To impose work on others while you do nothing of value is the very definition of exploitation.
ChockrickBearJan 28, 2022 12:52pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 17[/t]
Censorship is pushed by people who cannot convincingly rebut someone's claims, but are somehow confident he is wrong.
ChockrickBearJan 28, 2022 2:00pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 18[/t]
If you are wondering why people aren't doing enough for you, ask yourself why [i]you[/i] aren't doing enough for them, and you will have your answer.
ChockrickBearJan 29, 2022 2:59am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 19[/t]
People have a tendency of siding with the weak because the weak are easier to control and make them look stronger in comparison. Helping the weak is ultimately about power, not loving incompetence.
ChockrickBearJan 31, 2022 12:55pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 20[/t]
Power is the ability to get people to believe and defend you, even if you are full of shit. In real life, people seeking power are rarely dark, angry villains who are visibly insane because no one takes such people seriously. Instead, they tend to be bright people who position themselves as virtuous, intelligent, and unlimited because it is actually effective at convincing the masses who were raised on a diet of fantasy morality instead of economics.

Good and evil are not natural forces of the universe, they are socially constructed strategies of domination. Good only works until you run out of other people's money. Evil is useful for getting rid of the "good" people scapegoating and exploiting the righteous and productive. Gaining power is just doing whatever works regardless of right or wrong. But in the end, it is still motivated by self-interest. The real question is, does the power seeker's self-interest align with yours?
ChockrickBearFeb 2, 2022 1:55pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 21[/t]
The reason for declaring a group of people as inferior is not to get everyone else to hate them, but to get everyone to stand idly by while you inflict horrors upon them. Most people do not hate the inferior, they merely see them as insignificant. The real trigger for hatred is a belief that powerful people are using their power unjustly, while inferiority is merely an excuse to justify tearing them down and putting them back in their allegedly rightful place. The Nazis were not evil because of nationalism, but socialism.
ChockrickBearFeb 3, 2022 2:44am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 22[/t]
You cannot fact-check an expert by simply citing another expert who says the opposite. To do so begs the question of why the cited expert takes precedence over the expert in question. Who has the authority to decide this, and who holds this authority accountable? A proper fact-check would involve an actual study that tests the claim being made, or a logical deduction based on accepted facts (i.e. facts that even the expert in question accepts) that would render the claim impossible or improbable. If all you have is contrarian hearsay, then the claim is unproven at worst, not false.
ChockrickBearFeb 10, 2022 1:06pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 23[/t]
Not being submissive to scientists is not anti-science. Not being submissive to women is not misogyny. Not being submissive to blacks is not racism.
ChockrickBearFeb 13, 2022 12:37am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 24[/t]
Good leadership is not based on compassion, but tolerance and objectivity. Compassion is limited and cannot handle conflicts of interests, so it will result in arbitrary favouritism and animosity from those excluded. Tolerance is about listening to everyone and letting them have what they want without prejudice. Objectivity is the limiting factor when deciding whose conflicting interests take priority with respect to the overarching objective of why everyone is together in the first place. It is impossible to satisfy everyone when time, resources, and ideological consistency are limited, so favouritism falls on those who actually get things done so they can keep getting things done, allowing the group to continue existing.
ChockrickBearFeb 14, 2022 3:26am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 25[/t]
Judging a race is not the same as judging people by their race. You can be racist without being prejudiced, and prejudiced without being racist. The problem with rejecting racism is that it is the only counter-argument to racial Marxism (a.k.a. Critical Race Theory).
ChockrickBearFeb 14, 2022 1:16pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 26[/t]
Do not be allured by the idea of a goddess who will save you from darkness out of pure, unconditional love. If she can do that, she has a level of wealth, competence, and confidence that far exceeds yours, so you will never be good enough for her. The only reason she would do such a thing is to virtue signal to the king alpha who is even wealthier, more competent, and more confident than her. It is never for an unaccomplished fool like you.
ChockrickBearFeb 15, 2022 3:18am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 27[/t]
Loyalty is not about blindly devoting yourself to bad people, but understanding that is what it takes to carry out the goals you share with them, and realizing that is the kind of person you actually are.
ChockrickBearFeb 17, 2022 1:21am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 28[/t]
Men and women see gender equality as different things. Men see it as women taking the initiative to be goddesses of compassion saving the weak men out of unconditional love. Women see it as seizing the power and wealth of men while men still have to do all of the work. This is why the male feminist ends up being a sexual creep rejected by the women he thinks will reward him for his submission.
ChockrickBearFeb 19, 2022 1:38pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 29[/t]
If vaccinated people still have to wear a mask, then herd immunity is conceptually bullshit. If Native Americans were killed off by diseases the European colonizers were immune to, then herd immunity is conceptually bullshit. Vaccination is for protecting yourself, not others. If everyone is immune and the unprotected die off, of course there would be no more cases. Herd immunity is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
ChockrickBearFeb 21, 2022 2:00pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 30[/t]
The leftist world view in a nutshell: Helping the weak is good, equality takes precedence over truth, other people's money is part of a collective pool to be democratically spent, and anyone who resists is evil.
The rightist world view in a nutshell: Rewarding the strong is good, truth takes precedence over equality, other people's money is theirs to spend without prejudice, and anyone who resists is a dangerous idiot.
ChockrickBearFeb 23, 2022 12:01pm EST
[t]The value of life[/t]
All living things including humans kill lives all of the time for their own benefit. As soon as you distinguish between human life, animal life, plant life, and microorganism life, you are creating a hierarchy of violence where some life is more valuable than others. Even when it comes to humans, everyone distinguishes between good and evil lives according to their own subjective ideas, and have differing beliefs of whose death is worthy of outrage, indifference, or celebration.

Therefore, what are the criteria by which people decide that a life is worth protecting, or which life is more valuable than others? Neither side of mainstream politics has a consistent answer. Leftists believe that the weak should be protected to maximize the amount of life because all life is equally valuable, unless it is a fetus, political opposition, or overrepresented identity groups because there isn't enough money and power for absolutely everyone. Rightists believe that fetuses should be protected because all life is intrinsically valuable, unless it is the weak, criminals, or outsiders because weakness and criminality are the result of abdicating moral duty to become useful, while outsiders are burdensome and potentially subversive.

I believe that the most honest, realistic answer is that life is intrinsically worthless. Life is only valuable based on its subjective utility to the observer. What keeps people from random killing is the personal cost (e.g. time, energy, weapons, cleanup), retribution from those who have use for the lives in question, and the prospect of social power and wealth from saving lives. It is not surprising then, that mass killers kill because they have no hope of being popular, feel oppressed by society, and have nothing else more exciting to do with their lives. It is also not surprising that lots of regular people play violent video games because there are no real consequences.
ChockrickBearFeb 25, 2022 1:38pm EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 31[/t]
You cannot remain apolitical without eventually submitting to someone else's politics.
ChockrickBearMar 7, 2022 2:12am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 32[/t]
A legal expert does not have the same credibility as a physics expert because laws are not a fixed, objective system like reality. Laws are subjective social constructs that are regularly fought in court and distorted by vague and shifting ideas of justice. When Canada's Supreme Court literally claimed that [l=]truth is not a defense in hate speech cases[/l], in direct violation of the first sentence of the Canadian Charter, it is clear to me that legal experts are not necessarily good people arguing in good faith.
ChockrickBearMar 10, 2022 12:11am EST
[t]Random philosophical thought 33[/t]
The overarching theme of the story of Jesus is truth over power. It is a story of an individual who established a philosophy based on truth, stood up to the hypocrisy of those in charge, and proved his truth through his miracles. However, he was still persecuted by a bigoted mob intent on protecting the current power structure, and sentenced to death by a weak-minded authority who would rather cater to the mob than enforce the truth. As a character, Jesus is the embodiment of truth itself, and his resurrection symbolizes how the truth will rise again no matter how many willfully ignorant people attempt to mock and crucify it. Truth is the language of God, and those who deny the truth are, quite frankly, evil.
ChockrickBearMar 25, 2022 1:51pm EDT
[t]Left-right stereotypes[/t]
The idea that rightists think leftists are ignorant while leftists think rightists are evil seems to be inverted from what I have seen in online discussions. Leftist communities are made up of snide insults calling rightists superstitious, uneducated reality deniers, while rightist communities are made up of armchair theories of how leftists manipulate people with rhetorical tricks. There is a degree of truth on both sides, that leftists really do say impractical things to look good while rightists say things that are technically incorrect and lack nuance. Everyone is under pressure to say things beyond their knowledge because there is a need to test their views for universal consistency. But in the end, neither side is completely right nor completely wrong, and both sides are guilty of what they accuse each other of because they are all just humans who differ in their priorities.
ChockrickBearMar 29, 2022 1:28pm EDT
[t]Questioning equality[/t]
Is equality reality or fantasy? Is equality a logical conclusion you derived from observation, or is it something you just decided to be true to be a good person? Do you like certain people over others? Do you buy certain things over others, even though they were all made by people looking to establish themselves? What becomes of people you ignore or even outright hate? Are you even capable of equally caring about everyone in any meaningful way? Having considered these, do you still believe in equality?
ChockrickBearMar 30, 2022 1:19am EDT
[t]On bigotry[/t]
Bigotry is when you attack the person rather than the ideas. Bigotry is when you think those who were wrong can never be right. Bigotry is when you think ideas are fixed rather than evolving. Bigotry is when you care about moral purity over pure truth.
ChockrickBearMar 31, 2022 2:05pm EDT
[t]The logical flaw of Biblical charity[/t]
If wealth is meaningless enough that you can give it all to the poor and live off of the blessings of God, why do the poor need it? In fact, letting them die is the simplest way to send them to Heaven, which is worth more than all of the wealth you can give. By bearing the guilt of sin, others can be righteous, which ironically makes selfishness the greatest act of self-sacrifice.


I think the real meaning behind selling your possessions and giving it all to the poor is about seeing through the subjective illusion of wealth and realizing that you live in an objective reality that wealth cannot overcome. No matter how rich you are, you still get tired, get depressed, get sick, get old, and eventually die like everyone else. Mansions are not cheap to maintain, so you still have to work to keep everything. You are not above reality no matter how big your mansion is and how nicely you dress.

In the end, wealth is just materials taken from the Earth and arranged into humanly understandable patterns. When you understand that even the grandest architecture is just child's play compared to the even grander system of nature, you don't feel jealous about it. Earth itself is the grandest mansion you already live in, and nature is the highest purpose you are already a part of. You learn to live with a humble attitude without resentment towards others for being richer or poorer than you.

This does not mean that wealth is meaningless. Wealth does make your life more comfortable, and it is a major part of intergenerational progress, just don't fixate on it as the only source of meaning in life. Happiness is found in grounding yourself in reality and doing what you can to build up this world and its people for future generations to come. Greed can protect you from being exploited, but being too greedy is pointless because all of the wealth you built up will just go to waste when you die. Nature will eventually consume all of it if no one claims it, so you should pass it on and educate the next generation on preserving it so it lasts forever. This is what it means to store your treasures in Heaven.
ChockrickBearApr 11, 2022 4:59pm EDT
[t]Pacifism is overrated[/t]
In real life, you cannot risk being a pacifist like in video games because real people are not scripted and predictable like AI, non-lethal attacks are not consistent, and you cannot just quickload to try again. Every time you are caught trying to sneak around, fail to knock someone out, or get shot by a mind-controlled civilian is when you die in real life. Killing is moral when the risk to yourself or innocents is too great to not kill, which is why games that encourage pacifist play styles are morally misleading.
ChockrickBearApr 21, 2022 2:30am EDT
[t]Understanding villainy[/t]
A good villain is not a mere punching bag for you to feel good for beating. He teaches you why the world produces people like him.
ChockrickBearMay 22, 2022 2:09am EDT
[t]78 FOV is realistic[/t]
[b]Edit 2:[/b] I just got into Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, and it looks like its FOV works differently. I came up with 78 based on Black Mesa and Phasmophobia (i.e. Source and Unity engine games), but it does not seem to work as well with Mankind Divided. I suspect the reason is everything is just scaled up to be bigger on your screen. However, when indoors, focus on the distance to the back walls, and you will see that higher FOV makes rooms look bigger than they should be. I find 80 to be a good compromise.

[b]Edit:[/b] I've decided to bump up my recommendation to 78 because getting the correct scale can be a bit tricky depending on the environment. What looks good in one spot may look off in another, and I find 77 to be just slightly cramped with walls and stairs appearing a bit too close for comfort.

90 FOV is an often cited standard for first person shooters because popular competitive shooters in the past used that as the default on 4:3 monitors to provide more surrounding awareness. However, I find 78 FOV on my 23", 16:9 monitor to provide a more realistic perspective for single player games. FOV doesn't just affect how much you see, but the scale of things. In addition to the "fish eye" effect, higher FOV makes things in front of you appear smaller and farther away than they should be. When you stand in front of a chair, the chair should look big enough to sit on. Desk items should look close enough to reach and grab with your hand. Rooms in a house should look geometrically normal and cozy. 90 FOV makes furniture and props look small, while rooms look more spacious and distorted than they should.

90 FOV worked for old arena shooters like Unreal Tournament 2004 because the maps were designed to be wide and spacious for dodging around. Cramming the scenery together with high FOV actually made environments appear more realistic by shrinking the huge doorways and corridors while broadening open spaces. But when you look at the character models, they look tiny relative to the environments. Artificially large environments create an optical illusion that makes high FOV look natural. However, real people do not look that small, nor live and work in environments that huge. High FOV may work for competitive gaming, but not for immersive gaming.
ChockrickBearMay 23, 2022 2:31am EDT
[t]Real comedy is about truth, not power[/t]
When truth is your standard, the concept of punching up or down is meaningless. Those who see comedy as a power game become the joke when they are punched down by the highest power: reality.
ChockrickBearJun 20, 2022 1:27pm EDT
[t]The ethics of mass violence[/t]
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided shows you a dystopian world where augs are systemically discriminated against due to a major incident where augs lost control of themselves. Even though you are taught that mass violence is evil and most people are innocent, consider that the democratic majority voted for that system. You begin to realize that the concept of "senseless violence" is not real and those who incite fear of it are the ones provoking it.
ChockrickBearJul 11, 2022 11:44pm EDT
[t]Moral blindness[/t]
One of the reasons why leftism is pervasive because a lot of people have a hard time mentally constructing complete, meaningful, and consistent narratives. They are the kind of people who only watch shows for the action or romance scenes, while all of the talking goes straight through their brains. At most, they are only able to extract fragments of moral ideas from a story without connecting them to the greater context. They see a good Samaritan helping a weak person and think that is the pinnacle of good. They don't consider where the good Samaritan gets his resources, why the weak person is in that position in the first place, and whether that is a sustainable, scalable, and universal solution. Maybe they played a game that presents pacifism as the ideal moral action, not realizing how many times they had to reload the game every time they got caught and killed trying to achieve it.

I read Umineko When They Cry - Question Arcs, and it bugged me that Battler claimed he hates people who enjoy violence. Being the good guy protagonist, his belief is positioned as the moral one. But then I spin the chessboard around and look at the story from the perspective of the writer. Why would you write a violent story where you kill your characters over and over in different and humiliating ways if violence disgusted you? Anyone who plays violent video games would understand the fun of violence in a virtual setting. I have no problem with it because the violence is often justified and has no real-world consequences since the victims are just pieces on a game board. In Umineko, Battler is really just playing a murder mystery game in a supernatural world, which is why the characters can be repeatedly killed.

In this greater context, Battler's morality does not make sense and it seems hypocritical for the writer to push it. It is not that violence is not fun, but beating the same dead horse over and over gets old like anything else. If anything, it reflects a deep, fixated hatred of the victim, but that is not caused by the enjoyment of violence in itself. It seems like the writer really hates Rosa for being a two-faced mother, which is why she is killed more times than anyone else. Apparently, the writer does enjoy violence as long as it is justified. But if you are not a chessboard DJ, you might extract Battler's morality and adopt it in an attempt to be cool like him. Then, it leads you to virtue signal about saving the maximum number of lives and detesting people who believe in guns and self-defense.

The whole pacifist mentality strikes me as dishonest and pretentious because it is logically incoherent. It contains two contradictory premises:
1. There are no bad people who deserve violence, only people who are misunderstood and can be reformed.
2. Those who enjoy violence are bad people who should not be associated with.

Battler just states his moral belief as if it was eo ipso good and needs no justification. I brought up self-defense because the only reason leftists can be against it is because they hold this pacifist mentality reinforced by utilitarian morality. If five guys are coming after you and your gun, leftists believe you should just let them kill you because they believe all life is of equal value and you are just one life to their five. There is absolutely no consideration of context because any context that would tip the balance of value (e.g. those five guys are destroying innocent people's properties over bullshit societal grievances) would violate their willfully ignorant belief in equality.

Pacifism is a quixotic ideal pushed by those with shallow thought or an insidious agenda to protect those they agree with at the expense of those they don't. In Deus Ex, Paul Denton encouraged you to go non-lethal because he was secretly on the terrorists' side, not because he was just offering you an arbitrary choice of play style that Human Revolution and Mankind Divided seemed to think. People do not virtue signal out of genuine love for people they don't know, they do so with a self-serving agenda because they can only live their own lives and have limited capacity to care about those who are not useful to them.
ChockrickBearJul 22, 2022 1:21am EDT
[t]My definitions of left, right, and centre[/t]
[b]Leftism:[/b] Belief in collectivism (collective responsibility and social cohesion), subjectivism (each person has their own truth, while disagreements are resolved by collective authority), and equality (everyone is intrinsically the same and entitled to the same respect).
[b]Rightism:[/b] Belief in individualism (individual responsibility and merit), objectivism (truth exists independently of a person's belief, and everyone is expected to understand and submit to the truth), and hierarchy (some people are just better than others by nature and are entitled to more respect).
[b]Centrism:[/b] A combination of the two that involves a belief in pluralism (separate groups responsible for their own subjective interests) and meritocracy (dynamic hierarchy using objective comparison). One may prioritize pluralism (centre-left) or meritocracy (centre-right), but both must be accepted to qualify as centrist.

Pretty much everyone can be classified in one direction or the other based on what beliefs they espouse, although definitions vary between people and contexts, which is why there is a need for clear definitions. Even those who consider themselves centrist tend to lean in one direction over the other because the premises of left and right are in opposition to each other and difficult to perfectly balance without hypocrisy.

Extremism is the absolute devotion to one side under the belief that the other side is evil, any compromise is a slippery slope, and force is the only solution. While the popular political compass includes a separate axis for authoritarianism and libertarianism, I see no need for it because going extreme in either direction requires authoritarianism to follow through on it, and authoritarian centrism does not make sense. Extreme left requires forcing people to submit to the collective authority. Extreme right requires forcing people to submit to the superior authority. Liberty is the lack of authority, but reality itself still imposes limits to what is reasonable. Reality is an authority in itself, but at least it is not a fallible human.
I suppose it is not entirely accurate to say that leftists believe in equality. There are plenty of people they consider morally inferior and wouldn't mind subjugating, such as rich people, conservatives, straight white Christian men, incels, and racists. They do believe in hierarchy, just a different kind of hierarchy based on subjective moral value rather than demonstrated economic productivity or objective truthfulness. Equality is nothing more than a pretext to justify tearing down those they consider inferior and putting themselves or those they like in power. It has nothing to do with loving weak people they don't know. Therefore, it is not so much equality versus hierarchy as it is moral hierarchy versus ability hierarchy.
ChockrickBearJul 29, 2022 1:12am EDT
[t]The Nazis were socialists[/t]
Even though you see mainstream claims that the Nazis were rightist, [l=]read through Hitler's quotes[/l] and it becomes clear that his vision of society was a leftist one. National socialism is best described as an alt-left movement that diverges from Marxist socialism. It is socialism applied only to a single homogeneous nation under the belief it is the most realistic socialism. Hitler believed in an egalitarian Germany where everyone was equal as white Aryans. He believed in collective over individual good. Even though he claimed to believe in private property, he also believed in the state reserving the right to control businesses to ensure they conformed to the common good.

But like all socialists, he believed in oppression narratives, and saw Jews as the oppressor class exploiting the Germans. Indeed, socialism requires a scapegoat because in the leftist world view where everyone (or everyone of a single race) is intrinsically equal, society not already being an egalitarian utopia can only be due to certain privileged people actively preventing it from emerging to protect their privilege. The reason Hitler went after Marxist socialists was because they were Jewish, not because he hated the idea of socialism. He believed Marxism was a Jewish scheme to trick people using fake socialism that merely concentrated power into the hands of the Jews. He campaigned on offering Real Socialism(TM) for the German people, and that's why he was popular enough to get elected. His belief in racism had nothing to do with believing in a stratified social structure, and everything to do with making sure superior races stuck together as equals in their own nations. Of course, this requires stratifying society into races to make it happen, but internal consistency is not a socialist's strong point, and that is why there is so much confusion in categorizing them.

The reason why there is such insistence that fascism is rightist is that leftists want to protect the non-existent integrity of socialism so they can continue pushing it to seize power. They don't realize or don't care that fascism is what socialism evolves into due to the fact that reality itself is fixed and cannot be changed by a mere human fantasy.
ChockrickBearAug 6, 2022 1:14pm EDT
[t]The critical thinker and the power thinker[/t]
The critical thinker does not ignore any side of the argument. He listens to arguments in their original context and logically reconciles them with the observable reality to derive truth that informs his decisions. He believes truth exists independently of what anyone claims because people are capable of omission, distortion, lies, and bigotry towards an agenda, so he is not swayed by authority, popularity, or emotion. He does not think in simplistic labels and associations, but in paths of logic that lead people to believe what they do. He does not simply take other people's criticism at face value, he attempts to criticize the criticism. And he experiments with different ideas and evolves his views in pursuit of truth while recognizing that others may evolve as well. Truth is the highest power that everyone must submit to to achieve the best possible outcome.

On the other hand, there is the power thinker. His world view is based around social relationships and power dynamics with the aim of protecting and elevating certain people at the expense of others. He interprets arguments according to who it affects rather than their truthfulness. He considers truth to be a subjective construct that can be discarded and replaced to create ideal social conditions for those he stands up for. He appeals to authority, majority, or empathy because he believes truth is determined by power. He argues in labels and associations to divide people into allies and enemies. He considers personal attacks as valid criticism that justifies dismissing his opponent entirely. And he portrays himself as intrinsically good and fit for power while his enemies are evil and must be kept away from power. Truth is just a means to an end, and power is that end.
ChockrickBearAug 14, 2022 1:52am EDT
[t]The importance of masculine character[/t]
The idea of "My happiness is your happiness" is used to give the other person the impression that you are empathetic, good, and worthy of sex, but it is ironically an expression of weakness and submission. It is euphemistically saying, "I don't know what to do, therefore I expect you to make all of the decisions and I will follow your orders without question." This is ugly for a man to say because women are instinctively hypergamous (i.e. women want strong, leader-like men who know what to do). However, it is actually arousing if a woman says it because men are attracted to beauty and she is giving him permission. Masculinity is about being penetrative, femininity is about being accommodating. In short, men and women are different in their incentives, and men should not use women as an example of how to behave.

Unlike in fiction, real life is not directed by a writer who puts beautiful, competent people together in convenient circumstances, and makes them say, do, and feel the things that grow their relationship. But more often than not, the man only gets the woman when he becomes demonstrably strong by defeating the villain. However, a naive male audience might become inspired by the woman because it is easier to be the damsel in distress than the hero who has to fight, suffer, think, and become better for her sake. He also believes in gender equality because he was told to by authorities, especially because discrimination is illegal up to the constitutional level, so it must be right. Therefore, he expects women to be exactly the same as men and be attracted to him by his cute looks and shallow virtue, not realizing that is making him ugly.

In reality, a virtuous man is not one who submits to others, but is able to see what needs to be done and does them. He is a leader, not a subject, and he bases himself on reality, not fantasy. His will to do things creates a direction that directionless people become inspired by and want to follow. However, this will comes from his own selfish desires that he has thought out and is not ashamed of. A leader knows what he wants and works for them, while others follow him out of mutual interest. He knows that if he doesn't stand up for his own interests, no one will because no one else knows what he wants. He knows that when there is a group of people, someone has to make the decisions to get the ball rolling. If everyone defers decisions to each other, they just end up in a circular deadlock that can only be broken by one of them being selfish. But women selfishly want superior men, which is why gender equality is bullshit, sets men up for failure, and creates dishonourable women promiscuously sharing the few superior men who see through all of it.

Remember, [l=]humanity has many more female ancestors than male.[/l] Do not assume women are intrinsically wise or moral, and do not assume our culture has or ever will overcome evolution. Life is about survival of the fittest whether you like it or not.
ChockrickBearAug 29, 2022 6:13pm EDT
[t]Thought is the purest art form[/t]
Good thought is like art. It requires inspiration, imagination, reason, effort, and time to construct. Each thought evolves from the last thought, forming a narrative of learning, just as artists improve their craft from one work to the next. In fact, all art begins with thought, and the art that you see is a snapshot of the artist's thought made tangible and refined through iteration. You could even say thought is the real art and the art you see is simply the method to express that thought. The idea of a "polished turd" suggests that the real value of art is not in the technical skill needed to create it, but the narrative of thought that it conveys.

Beautiful art can only be created by beautiful thought, and creating art even as simple as writing is a good way to get the most accurate picture of your state of mind and direction of character. While someone who produces beautiful art can be ugly in other ways, he is still better than those who produce no art and leave their thoughts in a chaos of spontaneous, disparate, and contradictory ideas. Beauty is not about being perfect, but about being better. Simply immersing yourself in the art of others is not enough because someone else's thoughts are no replacement for your own. You do not become a hero by simply watching someone else be a hero, so you need to build a solid foundation of your own on which to judge ideas and have a thought that is truly yours. If you do not create, you do not think.