Egregoros

Signal feed

weknowwhygary

@weknowwhygary@nicecrew.digital

Posts

Latest notes

Watched this today, or, I listened to it while I was working, but I caught most of what he was saying. I've seen a few other videos he's made.

It got me to thinking about something. I have several old computers that I run just to play around with. Some are pre-Windows DOS machines that I play with to see how much modern-ish stuff I can do on them.

You remember how they trained that AI last year to convert images into the studio ghibli style? I wonder if you could train one to convert websites into a stripped down version so that old hardware and software could display them. I think the error old browsers run into is they can't handle ssl and tls, not that I know what those are, but they complain about them on most urls.

https://youtu.be/t992ul_IKtc
Deceiving the enemy in battle and war is perfectly normal. Raiding the enemy's baggage train and taking his food is normal for a war. These things would be sins if committed against a neighbor under peace time, but are acceptable against an enemy during war. This wasn't really where the debate was.

The discussion was whether or not we should lie to our own people about why they should take our side against a common enemy.
I could have worded it a little mo' better. As written, it's not correct.

You don't become the same as the enemy by doing what he does, that's bad logic. I didn't mean it that way.

I meant, you don't jettison your morality to win if the reason you should win is because you have that correct morality and your enemy doesn't. That's self defeating.
I (try to) do the right thing because God commands it, not because I think it will benefit me. I trust that it ultimately will be to my benefit to do the right thing, but the ultimate motive is, "God said so."

I do the effective things, restricted to what is right, because that is prudent and sensible, and God has a lot of advice about doing smart stuff and not doing dumb stuff.

It's not right, nor is it prudent, to lie to the public about why they should join my side. Ignoring the moral issue, they will eventually figure out that they were lied to, and they will distrust any further appeals to join.

It's silly to me, though, because it isn't necessary. I have countless videos and screenshots of jews themselves saying everything I would need to convince a normal man that he has an enemy who hates him and wants him dead. No need to invent anything more.
I didn't have internet when I played it, so I didn't have any else's opinions on it. I liked it.

I stopped playing AAA games because of stuff like churning out another stale COD or Halo title every year. I never played any other HL game, so if they made 500 of them, all meh, it would be the same.
The only place for a debate is when the king summons all the experts in a field to give their best arguments, and then he makes a decision and everyone follows it or they get their heads cut off.

You can replace the king with any other authority figure and it still works as long as he makes a call and that's the end of the debate.
The problem here is assuming that the people involved are thinking about things in these terms. The people striving for power and wealth, and getting invited to the orgy island, are assumed to have this arithmetic of compromise and leverage on their minds, as though they are always cognizant of being perpetually "in the ring," and that's probably not the case.

We react like, "you fell for it? you got invited to rape island and didn't think there would be cameras?" Correct. That's not what they were thinking. They were thinking, "pussy."

It reminds me of the discussion about Enoch I had with @tyler and Rubeus years ago. Rubeus didn't think it made sense that Enoch would sell his entire inheritance for a bowl of soup without some other details to explain it (it wouldn't make sense that these strivers would get caught in the rape-cam trap so easily), but Tyler argued, yeah that makes perfect sense. People make those kinds of stupid short sighted decisions all day long (people get tunnel (pussy)-vision all the time).

You get done eating that bowl of soup and pretty quickly realize you weren't thinking clearly about the deal you made.
I can be charitable about it. There is room for a grey area regarding deception in war. You don't email your enemy with up to date numbers on your troops and movements in an effort to be honest. You deceive your enemy in battle. You make him think something that isn't true, so that he doesn't know what is true, so that you can catch him off guard.

That's something different than lying to the pool of potential recruits about why they should join you. "I want you to risk everything to help me fight this guy, but I don't respect you enough to tell you the truth about why."

Atrocity propaganda is a real and constant element of warfare throughout history, but it's probably more heavily weighted on the side that isn't fighting with defensible motives. If you had real and justifiable reasons to fight, why did you make up all that other stuff that didn't happen? Tends to be because the real reason wasn't defensible.
The reason someone like that needs to be destroyed is because he is a liar. How you win, how you fight, etc, vs why you should fight, why you should win, why the other side should lose.

If you do the exact same thing the other side does, the side that should lose, then you just joined the side that should lose.

Subterfuge in war and lying are not always the same thing. You trick your enemies, but you don't lie to your neighbors. One okay, one bad.

Not that him being on one side of the equation means that the other side, romney, was good. It was two bads in a fight.