me: so..... see anything interesting lately?
the many eyed creature living in my basement: YOUR LAUNDRY IN THE WASHING MACHINE. IT WAS DONE CYCLING 4 HOURS AGO
me: oh shit i forgot thanks
no more humanity for me im just this guy forever:
thats my weird emotional support dog his name is jeremy
"i thought endermen hated endermites?" i never said i liked jeremy
dude i dont think you should have beef with your emotional support dog
the emotion he supports is rage
if two guys were on the moon and one killed the other with a rock would that be fucked up or what
you know what. after seeing Another blazed poll about this I'm gonna just
You are always playing The Game because its rules say you are always playing The Game. A game which you are not playing is therefore by definition not The Game. Similarly, you cannot avoid losing The Game (other than by not thinking about it) because the rules say you lose The Game when you think about it and don't provide any exceptions.
The important thing to recognize here is that even though the statement "You are always playing The Game" is true, "You should care about The Game and do what its rules tell you to do" does not necessarily follow from that. And I think that's interesting!
did you know? that's not how games work!
you are only beholden to the rules of a game if you're playing it. therefore, the rule "everyone who is aware of The Game is playing The Game" only applies to people who are playing The Game, therefore it ACTUALLY means "everyone who is playing The Game is playing The Game", which is meaningless and not an actual rule
Who says that's how games work
what would it even mean for this to be false? it's just. so self evidently true, that a game's rules don't apply to you if you're not playing. if there's a game with rules you "have to follow" regardless of if you're playing or not, that's not a game. that's just a standard social construct
I don't think it's self evident. The poll would seem to suggest it isn't for a large portion of the population, but even otherwise, that'd be of little benefit to say to someone unconvinced.
I wouldn't say "The Game" has rules you have to follow, per se, either. There's one goal, and a fail state for not achieving it, but in most formulations there's no punishment in the fail state as there is in say, paying up after a poker hand. But even then, I'd argue there are scenarios commonly understood as games that do punish losses (although this does suck): Punch buggy, the circle game, calling shotgun, etc.
I don't think something could cease to be a game if you had to perform it, either. Chess wouldn't become less of a game once Death says you have to play him or die, imo. It's still chess.
hhhhhh okay so.
the observation I'm making, the thing I'm calling self-evident, is that it's not possible for a game's rules to apply to people who aren't playing. if you literally were forced to play a game, it would be a game. but someone who isn't being forced to play that game, isn't being forced to play that game. it's a choice for anyone else.
like, if Death tells you to play chess or die, that would mean that you have to follow the rules of chess, but it says nothing about people who, aren't playing chess.
this is why a rule that says "everyone is playing" is meaningless if it's interpreted as an actual rule. rules cannot apply to people who aren't playing, so "everyone" by necessity only includes people who are playing. if you were literally forced to play, it would include you (as you are being forced to play), but if you're not playing a game, its rules cannot apply to you.
It was the weakest analogy of the bunch, I'd happily abandon it. The rest just seems tautological though, "rules cannot apply to people who aren't playing" can't be taken as a predicate when it's the conclusion being argued, right?
it's not the conclusion. it's a premise that I'm calling self-evident, because what would it even mean for it to be false
If rules, like you say, only apply to people who play the game, and the rules say that everyone is playing the game then since everyone is playing the game the rules apply to everyone...
Also, you aren't the rules-lawyer of all games ever. There isn't some book of all game rules that apply to all games (even though I would find that an interesting read). You can't say, "that's not how games work" without proof. Essentially, your source really boils down to, "I made it the fuck up." (Which, fair. All of games are made up. But let's assume for the sake of this debate that the made up rules of The Game shows precedence over the made up rules you created for all games)
again. what would it mean for this to be false? I don't think people who are challenging me on this point have actually thought this through that much.
like, "playing a game" means you're following (or trying to follow) the set of rules that define how the game is played. I don't feel the need to justify this claim because again. what would it mean for this to not be true?
so, if a game's rules are the description of how the game is played (which is very obviously what game rules are supposed to be), it just. it obviously and naturally follows from that that only people who are playing the game are necessarily following the rules. like, by definition.
so, it is also extremely obvious that the only people that a game's rules can apply to are people who are playing. and this self-evident fact alone is what implies that there cannot be a game rule that just axiomatically declares that it's impossible to stop playing. no matter what the game is, someone can stop playing by. deciding to stop playing. unless there's some sort of external factor that's physically forcing them to participate (which not relevant here but people keep bringing it up anyway as though it is) it is fundamentally impossible for a game to be impossible to opt out of.
and you're right, I am just sorta declaring these things to be true. but it's because they're just. they're so obvious? and I've yet to see an actual answer to the question "what would it mean for this to be false".
EVERY fucking stupid liberals university in the star trek future their fucking student sketch comedy group OF COURSE has at least one Vulcan and it's like their thing where they're like "haha I bet you wouldn't expect a VULCAN in an IMPROV group!!!!!" as if this hasn't become such a fucking tired cliche like literally since 2063 every fucking comedy show has the token Vulcan to be the straight man. you're doing nothing. call me when you guys make an effort to actually include tellarites in the writing room instead of confining them to punch lines. and to be honest with you guys your Vulcan isn't even that good. his performance was highly derivative of T'min's work in the big bang theory 3 (the third big bang yheory. they make a lot of sitcom sequels in the future)
The last thing you said cannot be true because star trek is supposed to be a utopian future.
star trek is very demonstrably not a utopian future it's a broken society playing at paradise. we see hints of this earlier in the post when I mention university improv comedy groups
Though honestly in terms of conceits for a fantasy novel 'launching satellites for purposes of synthetic astrology so as to control the future' isn't actually a bad one.
hi, i’m frank stallone
I’m frank stallone
I’m frank stallone
I’m frank stallonee
i’m frank stallone
quick frank, they found 500 lbs of spaghetti in the woods of new jersey. as president of the country, what do you think we should do to contain it??
I think we should let it slide. As long as it’s never threatening our borders it is fine.
Think about the tens of thousands of years it would have been in New Jersey. It’s like saying “we can’t have spaghetti in our country, the spaghetti in New Jersey is all evil.”
Spaghetti belongs in New Jersey, it’s its natural home. By eating spaghetti and living in New Jersey we are trying to find the most direct path to happiness, we are being in touch with our real selves. In fact, what are you even doing to yourself by trying to stop spaghetti in New Jersey? Are you afraid it’s going to turn New Jersey’s great natural resources into evil spaghetti resources? But this is not only wrong but impossible. There is no such thing as evil spaghetti resources. Goodness and happiness are part of spaghetti itself. To forbid spaghetti from growing in New Jersey means forbidding its own existence. There is no good reason to want this.
We should let spaghetti live its own life. It will never cross our borders, so it’s no problem. It will only cross our borders with our will, and when it does cross our borders it should be treated like a free citizen: with love and appreciation.
is new jersey not within our borders? do ohio next
Good question. New Jersey is not part of the US so it’s not part of our borders, but it’s also part of our actual borders, due to the arbitrariness of political geography. I think we should let it stay.
But Ohio is another story. Since we cannot yet be sure Ohio is within our borders, we should not allow anyone to carry spaghetti over the border from Ohio to the US, and if it crosses of its own volition we should shoot it with our giant spaghetti cannons on sight. It must be prevented from ever establishing a spaghetti population in the US (within our borders) at all costs. Spaghetti in Ohio is our last line of defense.
quick frank, they found 500 lbs of spaghetti in the woods of new jersey. as president of the country, what do you think we should do to contain it??
I think we should let it slide. As long as it's never threatening our borders it is fine.
Think about the tens of thousands of years it would have been in New Jersey. It's like saying "we can't have spaghetti in our country, the spaghetti in New Jersey is all evil."
Spaghetti belongs in New Jersey, it's its natural home. By eating spaghetti and living in New Jersey we are trying to find the most direct path to happiness, we are being in touch with our real selves. In fact, what are you even doing to yourself by trying to stop spaghetti in New Jersey? Are you afraid it's going to turn New Jersey's great natural resources into evil spaghetti resources? But this is not only wrong but impossible. There is no such thing as evil spaghetti resources. Goodness and happiness are part of spaghetti itself. To forbid spaghetti from growing in New Jersey means forbidding its own existence. There is no good reason to want this.
We should let spaghetti live its own life. It will never cross our borders, so it's no problem. It will only cross our borders with our will, and when it does cross our borders it should be treated like a free citizen: with love and appreciation.
is new jersey not within our borders? do ohio next
Badlands, South Dakota. False Color Infrared, [OC] [1920x2400] - Author: PhotoBoyWonder on Reddit
your ip address is your proudest achievement sshare it with anyone you meet
Pathologic IS fun actually you guys are just playing it wrong
yes you're starving yes you have the plague but did you know there's a completely useless jump mechanic. did you know you can make the bachelor do a little hop
It’s important that everyone understand that, when I say that I “like” a villainous character, what I in fact mean is that I consider them to be both cool and morally praiseworthy, as well as correct in their aims and methods and worthy of emulation by people in the real world. Just in case there was any ambiguity on this point.
I further elaborate that I consider them to be An Excellent Role-Model for Impressionable Children.
I almost neglected to mention that they are a worthy sexual partner and that I am aroused by everything that they do.