• 0 Posts
  • 129 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 26th, 2023

help-circle
  • I wanted to break the video game logic people were using. People write things like “This piece of paper says anyone can compete. Therefore the men’s group is really the Open group.”

    People literally argue as if we live in a video game. They think they because they can Google what a law says, that the simulation automatically implements said law.

    Nothing in the rules of chess say that men ought to harass women. Therefore, that fact is hidden from many people. A piece of paper doesn’t say it, so it’s invisible.

    If someone lived in reality and they knew that men consistently harass women and that the world of men doesn’t do enough to stop it, then they probably wouldn’t believe that the men’s group is somehow the open group that welcomes all challengers.



  • Their Programming is now “we need to avoid WW3, Russia will nuke us, we need to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, it’s got nothing to do with us”

    A bunch of them instantly became bleeding heart pacifists because wearing that hat let’s you say the things best things for the current news cycle.

    I think I saw one or two people trying to say this has always been the conservative position. I mean what’s America first but being anti war? It’s like different trumpers just sit there in a plastic box waiting to be activated. Crickets when conservatives are doing X, Y, Z, but then suddenly these things appear when it’s convenient. Hey everyone, these magats didn’t call for political violence! These magats have always been against foreign wars!





  • “If we assume X theorem is true, Y theorem is true, and lemma Z is true, then …”

    This is actually about our models and seeing their incompleteness in a new light, right? I don’t think starting from arbitrary axioms and then trying to build reality was about proving qualities about reality. Or am I wrong? Just seems like they’re using “simulated reality” as a way to talk about our models for reality. By constructing a “silly” argument about how we can’t possibly be in a matrix, they’re revealing just how much we’re still missing.