jjjalljs @ jjjalljs @ttrpg.network

Posts

3

Comments

3,612

Joined

2 yr. ago

I meant the amount of effort it takes for the end user.

If we're going to talk about higher order levels of effort, then everything gets very expensive very quickly.

No single thing alone will fix the world. Voting alone won't fix it. Throwing a molotov alone won't fix it.

Voting (in many places, for many people) takes almost no effort. Go do it. But don't call it a day and think you've done everything you can do. Refusing to vote just yields one of the many fronts in this conflict without a fight.

There was a book I read where the exorcism failed when the Christian guy tried to do it, but worked when the best friend sang their favorite song. It was corny but sweet. (I might be remembering it slightly wrong)

I ran a game in near future New York and used Google maps and street view for guidance. Worked well. None of the other players lived here, so I think the visuals helped them.

I had one really good game of Vampire. Lasted a couple years. We still talk about it sometimes, and its best scenes. Like how one PC saved an NPC by jumping out a 10th story window with her. Or the time they had a huge in character fight because the job they'd tried to do went sideways.

But I've also had a couple really bad games. There was one where they just didn't read and retain anything from the books. One of the players on like session 4 was like "wait. How do I get more blood? Do I like... Bite people?". My friend what do you think was happening in the other scenes when people were hunting for blood? They also didn't retain anything about the different factions, so they didn't really understand anyone's motivation. It was bad. Still feel bad about it.

A former partner's family lived in upstate New York, North of Albany, and we'd visit occasionally. The neighbor flew a Confederate flag. Strange, for upstate New York.

Not technically, literally, a Nazi, but I wouldn't be surprised if the guy was into that shit, too.

Arguing for what's best for humanity long term..

all their wealth has been distributed to feed those who are in need. Who are you going to kill and eat next?

No one. This isn't the fascism that always needs an enemy to hate on

The intention is different. Self defense against conservatives vs their offense against all. See also the paradox of tolerance

Doctors cut people up just like serial killers. They're basically the same.

is that not also a form of weakness masquerading as strength?

what?

How are you any better if you hate them for that?

I'm better than them because I'm not trying to overthrow the government to install a dictatorship that protects my in-group (eg: straight white people) and binds my out-group. I'm not trying to destroy the environment, murder the queers, ban books, ban vaccines, either.

Please. Elaborate.

I don't think the fumes from vaping are especially safe or welcome, either. At least there's no littering, though

You probably watch YouTube with the sound on and no headphones in public, too.

Hating on weak people feels good to them, maybe?

Every smoker I've met gets very defensive about "why can't I breathe my toxic fumes on everyone else?? What's the big deal?? And then they get so mad when I litter like get over yourself"

Smoking in public is indefensible. There are smoking cessation programs.

Conservatives have no real value system beyond "what is good for me right now?". They like or dislike things for transient, emotional, reasons. They might be in favor of charity when it's doing something they personally benefit from, but that's about as far as their reasoning goes.

Conservatives would say this is communism and bad, which is why we should kill and eat conservatives.

Probably because they're addicted, enjoy the high, and don't have the means or strength of character to quit.

People that work at microsoft could stop this. With means gentler than "Crack open the CEO's skull with a hammer", too.

Most people are kind of stuck in their own messy heads, and it's a feat they get out of the house fully dresssed.

I don't expect most people to listen to music I recommend or talk about.

I do enjoy what I call "the song game" for sharing music. It's kind of a thing that can just happen but I formalized it a little. One person plays a song. Then the other person plays a song with some link to the first one. So if you play the velvet underground's "Sunday Morning" I can respond with Nirvana's "lithium" because it has the line "Sunday morning is every day for all I care".

One of the reasons I like this is it forces the other person to engage with your song, at least a little, because they have to listen closely enough to find something to link to. The default mode, without this structure, is just to wait for their shit to finish so you can play your cool thing. That kind of sucks.