Messages

the names of the boards dont actually make sense. it took me a good half an hour of scrolling to figure out what this board does. i still dont understand

This board used to be "Apple Talk", but then the apple melted--as apples will--and now all that's left is sand and blood.

Read the inscription on the pedestal--if you can find it, under all that sand.

If you don't like TikTok, then stop visiting it.

I don't, but I think the trend it set (the hyper-aggressive algorithm) is just something that's everywhere now

Everywhere?  I hardly see that anywhere.

But I have a preternatural talent for triggering obscure bugs in computer programs (I crashed ChatGPT the first time I tried to use it) so maybe these algorithms are just avoiding me out of fear.

No, I just hate that TikTok has the worst fucking algorithm and I hate the idea of every aspect of internet culture being forced to shed itself of individuality because everything must be advertiser friendly and presentable.

If you don't like TikTok, then stop visiting it.

Fall 2022 I had far too many apples to deal with, so I tried making cider.
That turned out well; but fall 2023 the tree gave me almost nothing, so I decided to try making mead instead, and use up the nanking cherries.

My traditional mead (made mostly for the learning experience) is almost three months old, I'm just waiting for it to clarify.  After the second racking, I think I've got too much headspace in the carboys;  hopefully it won't oxidize, but time will tell.

I have a two-month-old nanking cherry melomel near the end of primary fermentation (starting to stall at 14.9% ABV).  I'll apply what I learned with the trad and try to manage headspace better, and maybe add sulfites to keep the spectre of oxidization at bay.

My mistake with the melomel was not putting the fruit in a bag.  I now have a bucket with three gallons of pulpy melomel, with floaty bits on top, and fruit sludge on the bottom.  Racking this without plugging the siphon is going to be interesting.

As with gardening, brewing is slow.  It takes weeks and months to discover one's mistakes.

What does it mean to be discordian?

What does it mean, when anyone can attach the label to themselves, and, like the christians, anyone else can just as easily say they're not a real discordian?

What does it mean if I can look at someone who's never heard of discordianism, and recognize that they reflect my own discordian ideal, that they're discordian without knowing it?

What does it mean if, when I meet someone calling themselves discordian, discover they're close-minded, bigoted, incapable of introspection, an otherwise horrible specimen of humanity, and yet I must nevertheless acknowledge that they're still undoubtedly, unquestionably a discordian?

It means nothing.  Discordianism is just another trap.  You stick a label on yourself, pretend that it changes something, and now you're one of the Enlightened Few.  You acknowledge the parable of the barstool, but you don't really believe in it; it's just a story.  You've got this.  You know how it all works, now.

Hail Eris.

I tried to read it, but gave up after two paragraphs.

Perhaps there is a funny story buried under all that purple prose, but the author evidently confused a thesaurus for a style guide.

Write your messages on toilet paper in public bathrooms instead.

You won't waste paper, you'll reach a wider audience, and your words will be delivered to the end they deserve.

My last post in this ridiculous thread (yaaa):


Good Morning Spectators! Today we will be taking the following phrase -

"The original poster of this thread, and others like them, are literally in fear for their lives, some having difficulty with day-to-day survival,..." (thank you cno for supplying this)

- and having 2 widely different groups duke it out and see which group this phrase REALLY should apply to. Winner gets the Title and Belt.

[snip]

You put a lot of text into that straw man.  I skimmed past most of it, I've had enough of Ayn Rand's form of didacticism to last a lifetime.

You're exactly the kind of person who, in the early 1930s in Germany, would have been saying "See, the Jews don't have it so bad!" while sitting in your comfortable armchair, enjoying the fruits of nascent fascism.

Funny thing?  You were wrong.  I don't browse twitter or facebook.  And my chair is actually pretty comfortable.  But when people say they're in trouble, I don't use my privilege to mock them and tell them it's not so bad.

I try listening first.

1. Can I get my forum tag to say "Shit-for-brains new person."? I like it.

You don't need my permission.

2. When was the last time you were beaten, imprisoned, or killed by your government? Maybe try it before shooting your mouth off. I will certainly be more impressed. You need some slack...jumping immediately and angrily on someone for posting an opinion just shows me how your progamming works.

The original poster of this thread, and others like them, are literally in fear for their lives, some having difficulty with day-to-day survival, and you just wandered in with some moronic "it's all just a game" nonsense.  This isn't some hypothetical news-program talking point you're dismissing here, it's real people.

Do you think atrocities being committed by governments are pure fictions invented to manipulate the masses?  Do you think someone needs to suffer personally in order to care about how other people may be harmed by political policy?

You're either a moderately amusing troll, or a really horrible person.

3. I repeat...it's a game designed to keep you in fear/anger/unstability. You just proved my point.

Perhaps one day it will occur to you that somewhere beyond the vast morass of propaganda and social manipulation there are actually some human beings, and maybe we should treat them as more than just a game.

You might find a lot less stress in your life if you simply ignore all the external stimuli that is being forcibly pressed upon you.

Hey.

Shit-for-brains new person.

This thread is specifically about the kind of politics that kills people.  If you're one of their "undesirables", you can't opt out of being beaten, imprisoned, or killed.

very, I certainly don't condemn your choice, it's still a choice to support genocide.

Bullshit.  If I'm a vegetarian, and both candidates eat meat, voting for one of them isn't a choice to support meat-eating.

You select who to vote for based on the differences between the candidates, not what they have in common.  If you don't vote, then you're saying that the differences between them don't matter.

Let's say you have a choice between voting between two of the worst specimens of humanity, who have identical policies in almost every respect, but one will load the supreme court with judges who toss out Roe v. Wade, and the other wants to protect abortion rights.

If you don't vote, that would be a declaration that you don't support women's rights.  Nothing else. 

Nobody is going to pat you on the head and praise you for not voting for either of the two monsters when you sit back and let the worse monster win unimpeded. Not voting doesn't keep the monsters out, and it doesn't give you the moral high ground.  It makes you a moral coward.

You don't like the choices?  Do something about it after you've voted.  Or before.  But like the Würfel said, if you don't vote against the nazis, you voted for them.

I can't personally vote for someone actively committing genocide, not even to keep the other person, who also wants to commit genocide, out.

In the context of this thread, the choice presented is voting against the person who wants to kill you, or not voting at all.

How fucking tone-deaf are you?

It's all so stupid.

Things don't have to get worse for them to get better.

Things can get worse without ever getting better.

Voting isn't an act which precludes taking other actions.

Addiction to rationality is caused by irrational motivations. if we were truly rational we'd give up on rationality. As Roger was fond of saying, it's no way to run a human being.

Indeed.  Logic is often a useful tool for achieving a specific goal, but it's entirely useless at figuring out what root goal to select.  Axioms cannot be arrived at rationally.

It seems obvious now, but I was well into my twenties before I figured that out.

feel like he'd read like BIP and take away all the wrong messages . if he makes a single tweet about this all of the cryptocurrency/roko's basilisk guys would overwhelm us in seconds

He won't. He's too pig-brained to actually recognize any value in Discordian messaging. The one to worry about is Yudkowsky.

I vaguely recall that Yudkowsky mentioned Discordianism once?  So it may already be too late.  I was reading through some of the writings on lesswrong a while back.  Google isn't helping me find the specific reference, though.

I find a lot of Yudkowsky's rationalist ideas to be interesting/useful, but his views on AGI are bonkers.  His reaction to the Roko's Basilisk nonsense, at least, indicates to me that even if he can discuss the mental tools of rationality, he isn't very good at applying them consistently, and is highly susceptible to fear-motivated rationalization.