Recent posts by AlextheGreat13 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / YAY double celebration!

Originally posted by Mikkmar:

Instead of killing, it could be banning.

The problem with that is that banning people just takes a few mouse clicks. It’s not quite the same as a battle to the death, especially since there is no measuring of strength in banning, which is the whole point of the Sith hierarchy.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / niceman555's 5000th post Thread!

After reading this post a bit more thoroughly, I realized that it was quite harassing towards certain users. I edited out the harassing sections considering that this post is otherwise constructive.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / YAY double celebration!

Originally posted by yeasy:

7000 more and you’ll get modship for free, like everyone.

Well, not quite (And yes, I understand that you’re speaking in jest (at least I hope) but I feel like I should elaborate for those that might not understand that your remark is sarcastic).

A few criteria need to be met before a person becomes a moderator.

First, there needs to be a need for a moderator. This part is largely out of your control. If the forum is doing just fine with the moderators that are already present, then it is unlikely that new moderators will be recruited. If, however, it is deemed that there is insufficient moderation, which might be caused by moderators leaving, then the search for new moderators may begin. Whether or not the current moderation team is sufficient to carry out moderation is admittedly somewhat arbitrary and is left up to the discretion of the powers that be.

Second, once the need for a moderator has been established, then the selection of moderators will take place. Generally, moderators must be well known, frequently participatory, and somewhat well-liked within the community. This is to ensure that the moderator has some ties to the community itself, which will then lead to greater trust and respect between moderators and the community.

Finally, to elaborate more on the second point, the personality and motivations of the candidate for moderator must be assessed. The simplest way I can convey the desired personality of a moderator is to think of the Jedi from Star Wars. Consider the scene in which Luke asks Yoda, “How will I know the good from the bad?” Yoda responds with “You will know when you are calm, at peace.” Essentially, what this means is that a moderator must be able to maintain a feeling of calmness toward the situation so that it may be judged objectively and professionally. If a moderator is too zealous with his or her actions, then their judgment may be clouded by passion, and they might end up doing more harm than good. The moderator should also be humble. Recall Episode III when Anakin sought to become a Jedi Master, and the council denied him, saying that he was not ready. The reason they did that was because Anakin thought of a position on the council as a seat of power to be sought after, which is certainly not what it is meant to be. Likewise, the position of moderator is not a position of authority. Expressing eagerness to become a moderator will usually call your motives into question, which is precisely why you should not ask to be made a moderator. In summary, a moderator should ideally be someone who keeps calm in any situation and does not seek authority or power over others.

This does raise the question of what a forum whose moderation selection is founded on Sith principles would be like. I imagine that there would be some way for users to compete with one another to be in the top position. I doubt that the Sith method of train-an-apprentice-until-the-apprentice-kills-you would really work out in practice.

Edit: Thank you for pointing out that mistake.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Oh God, waiting for my Steam cards to sell

Originally posted by Toa_of_Pi:

I haven’t really done anything with my steam wallet, but it has been funded entirely by selling cards ($1.51 so far), and every time I put a card on the market there’s that dread of “Did I put the right price? Are people actually going to buy this? Is someone going to put it for 1 cent cheaper, and they’ll buy that one instead?”

Congratulations on making your goal.

Yeah, it’s like a power fantasy in a way. I get to experience the “struggles” of the bourgeoisie as I trade these pseudo-stocks. Even though I’m just trading nickels and dimes while Valve profits from the whole system.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / YAY double celebration!

I remember when I was your age.

So full of life and hopes and dreams.

I cherished watching that little number grow, and I let my ego grow with it.

But over time, it turned into a shackle. I thought, I already spent 10,000 posts here, I might as well stay.

Also I became a moderator.

Now whenever I come here, it’s with a feeling that I probably should, that it’s my duty to myself and my community. The days where eagerness and whim drove my every action are long gone.

Enjoy it while you can.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / furries vs bronies: which are worse

Originally posted by Boomibom:

Brony is a type of furry

While there is a significant overlap between the two groups, I’d still say they’re different phenomena. Bronyism is, at its core, tied to the television series, while furries have no such ties. Bronies were created from a specific piece of mass media, and although it could be argued that furries were inspired by anthropomorphic animals in cartoons, the furry fandom does not have a specific work that it is bound to.

Also, when looking back through this thread, I saw a post of mine from 2011 where I said I was a brony. Upon seeing it, I immediately deleted it out of embarrassment. What was I thinking back then? Why couldn’t I foresee my future self cringing at memories I had long since tried to suppress?

I know at the time, I sort of did it as an act of solidarity. The brony fad was helping to breathe some life and activity into the forum, and with its themes of friendship, love, and tolerance, it seemed to be a constructive force for the community. That of course raises the question, just how serious was I? Was it just a facade so that I would appear to be an involved member of the community, or was I a legitimate fan of the show? I know I watched a couple of episodes just to get a basic familiarity with what all the hype was about, but I know I quickly lost interest. That disinterest, over time, has distilled into outright rejection.

I think from now on, I’ll just choose to dissociate myself from most fads and fandoms.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / TIPS FOR GOING TO SLEEP

Forget sleep.

I’ve done so many all-nighters that I’m basically nocturnal now. Sometimes I work myself into a somewhat normal cycle, but I inevitably break it again.

Now I’m just in the mood where I don’t care, and I just sleep when I’m tired, which just so happens to be during the daytime.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Oh God, waiting for my Steam cards to sell

So on Steam, Castle Crashers is on sale for $1.49 for the next 8 hours. I have $1.36 in my Steam wallet. I figured I’d sell some of those trading card things to make up the difference. So I have 8 hours to make 14 cents.

It’s like I’m a stock broker. The cards are pretty much useless in themselves, I’m just hoping some gullible schmucks are going to give me money for them. I’m watching the little line graph intensely, trying to find that sweet price where it sells quickly, but for enough money.

Just sitting, waiting for money to come.

I’m such a schmuck.

Do any of you know that feeling?

IMPORTANT UPDATE: After about twenty minutes, I got up to $1.55. Enough for the game. That’s 19 cents in 20 minutes, or 57 cents per hour.

Livin’ the life.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I'm a goat and nobody on OT can deny

It must be hard typing on a keyboard with hooves.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Post your desktop [HERE]!

In all of its glory.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / why do men love it when a women treats them like crap?

Objection, your honor. This is a loaded question.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Does post count matter?

The only time post count is really relevant to me is when I want to express how much time I’ve sunk into this forum without resorting to hyperbole.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Fresh new haircut...

You look a little gray in the photo. Have you been taking your vitamins?

Also, the hair looks good, I guess. Whether or not it’s actually good is only in your jurisdiction. All you can rely on the opinions of others for is for us to enforce some societal norms upon you. All I can really say is that I probably would not choose that haircut, but only because that is not how I would express myself. By you choosing that style of hair, you are, in some sense, expressing yourself rather than conforming to the will of society, which is a good thing. I applaud.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / What's new, OT?

Well, I finished up another semester of college. Got all A’s.

Now I can screw off for a whole month on OT until I have to go back.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / WTF does this mean?

Originally posted by IceBomb45:

So why the hell does everyone spam emoticons? Or emojis? Whatever they are? Is it really necessary to display a reaction/response?

Generally not, and I find them quite annoying.

Part of the reason I like this forum is that it has no built-in emoticon system.

Other than Alt + 1, of course. ☺

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Cunt

Originally posted by DanielMontgomery:

by single group do you mean vaginas or anybody you could call a cunt?

If you use it to refer to a vagina, then it falls into the vulgar category.

If you use it to refer to women, then it falls into the derogatory category.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / WTF does this mean?

It’s simply a character that is unrecognized by the system. As has been said before, they’re probably emoticons.

Originally posted by IceBomb45:
Originally posted by Pipipipipi314:

I think it’s supposed to be emotes, it only shows for Apple operated systems though

So you have to own a Mac?

Or an iPhone; those are pretty popular too.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Cunt

“Most harsh” is entirely subjective, but I have an idea as to why it might be more offensive than words such as fuck or shit.

That reason is simple: it is a derogatory term. In this case, it refers to women, but there are other derogatory terms that refer to other disenfranchised groups, such as black, homosexual, transgender, etc people. Because such terms are used as tools of discrimination, they are generally not allowed here on Kongregate (though context can sometimes create exceptions).

This is in contrast to words such as fuck or shit, which are merely vulgar. They refer to bodily processes that some may find disgusting, so restraint is recommended with such terms, but they are not outright forbidden. An exception however, is when these terms are directed toward someone (For example, “Fuck you; you’re a piece of shit.”). At this point, the terms are used to be abusive. While such language is not necessary to be abusive to another person, they clearly signify a lack of respect.

Retard and idiot are curious examples of derogatory slurs. They were once used as medical terms, but have been abandoned by medical professionals as society repurposed them into insults. Generally, it is still offensive toward mentally disabled people to use the term retard, but society tends to turn a blind eye toward that for some reason.

TL;DR: It’s bad because it singles out a particular group for discrimination.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Lately I've been thinking that socialism is a pretty good idea.

Originally posted by LukeMann:

Keep in mind that this can be seen as a benefit of capitalism. By having different companies competing with each other and seeking an edge, it drives innovation. A new iPhone comes out every year but that new iPhone always has improved technology. One problem I rarely see brought up in topics of socialism is how to deal with the issue of stagnation. Without a purpose to innovate, one can envision a society that merely subsists at its current technological level.

Alright, let’s deal with the issue of innovation. I have discussed how technological progress under socialism can benefit people as workers (by lessening the burden of work for them), though I suppose I did not describe how it benefits them as consumers.

First, let us deal with how new technologies come into being. Under socialism, if higher education was treated as one of those “positive rights” that I described to Speardudezor, then higher education would be made available to all who desired it, as opposed to only those who could afford it. This means that there would certainly be no shortage of educated people in society. I also assume that those colleges and universities that undertook educating students would also be the places where research and development could be done. By having all research and development taking place in academic settings, their findings and technological innovations could be treated as public goods available to anyone.

But then, once those innovations are found, how would they be implemented in society? Well, if we remember that the workers are the same people who consume products, and since they control the means of production, that means they can directly choose what they wish to make. Once a college or university finds out how to make some new and fantastic item, if the people want it, they can collectively decide for factories to start producing it.

Thus, innovation can be made without those drawbacks like deceptive marketing or planned obsolescence. It also is done through cooperation instead of competition. Competition, of course, has numerous drawbacks of its own. If one company out-competes another, then the workers of the failing company will go unemployed through no fault of their own, and the employees of the successful company would be pushed to the breaking point so that they could out-produce the workers of the other company.

Another point of your I disagree with is when you say it’s more profitable for drug companies to make temporary treatments instead of permanent cures. Again, the issue of competition arises. If a company were to discover, say, a cure or breast cancer? They would make billions! The amount of money they’d make from distributing a cure instead of just a treatment would be more immense than we could imagine. The only way your argument here holds water is if you believe all of the pharmaceutical companies are in a price-fixing agreement, which frankly seems unlikely and can be dealt with in a capitalistic society via anti-trust agreements and the like.

That is a good point. I suppose I was thinking in terms of a monopoly rather than a system which includes multiple competing companies. Still, price-fixing has occurred in the past under capitalism, and though anti-trust laws can hinder practices such as these, the method does have its limits. Remember in my response to tHErofLwaffLe that money has considerable weight in politics, which means that those who can make the highest campaign contributions (the wealthy business owners) can sway the government to act in their favor.

But also remember that under capitalism, the company that did find a miracle cure to some disease could charge exorbitant amounts of money for it, keeping the cure solely in the hands of the wealthy. You might claim that under capitalism, competition would keep the price low, but patenting the drug would ensure that only one company would be able to produce it. However, once that patent expired, even competition might not make the cure available to the extremely poor.

Under socialism, cures, like all innovations, would be treated as public goods, and distributed to all those who need them.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Thats just scary...

If we knew about everything in the universe (this is called omniscience), I doubt we’d be scared. Much of our fear comes from our uncertainty of the future. We don’t know if our futures will be good or bad, and that brings about feelings of anxiety and fear.

However, if we knew our futures with exact certainty, we would know precisely when we would die and how. And, assuming that our knowledge of the future would be infallibly true, there would be no way of preventing this death. Would that make us scared? Maybe, but it would be a different kind of fear than one born out of uncertainty.

On a scale from 1-10, I’d say √-1, since it wouldn’t be fear as we can currently perceive it. It would be unreal.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Lately I've been thinking that socialism is a pretty good idea.

Originally posted by SpearDudezor:

Alright, I think that works. If I’m not forced to work, I would probably find ways to contribute to society anyway – I don’t want to be a freeloader. Not so if I am forced to work. Kinda like taxes. Libertarianism is my kind of thing too.

What happens if someone wants, for example, more food? Food is generally “public domain”, right? Would he be limited in some way?

If you want more food, I suppose you could just devote more of your earnings towards it. If you had a grocery store where all the food was free for everyone, you’d probably have a “tragedy of the commons” situation where some people would take more than they need and not leave enough for others, so you would probably need some way to portion it out to people. I know that there is a tremendous surplus of food in our society, so I imagine that the amount allotted to each individual would be much more than what they could eat.

Also, you may be interested in libertarian socialism, if that’s your thing. It does seem interesting to me.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Lately I've been thinking that socialism is a pretty good idea.

Originally posted by tHErofLwaffLe:

So basically, the whole world would be better off under socialism?
Do you think there is any possibility that America will simply switch from capitalism to socialism?

Well that’s the trouble.

There are some socialists who believe that socialism can be achieved through reform, and others who believe it must be achieved through revolution.

Knowing the grim outcomes of various revolutions through history (the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, etc), I sincerely hope that reform is an option. But, as I’m sure we’re all aware, money has considerable weight in politics, which tilts the political system in capitalism’s favor. I’m a bit on the fence regarding that issue, and I need to think about it more.

Originally posted by SpearDudezor:
Under socialism, you would have to work less than you would under capitalism

That’s the thing – I don’t want to work at all. Not in the sense that I don’t want to make an effort, but I don’t want to have a “job”. Since I wouldn’t work, I wouldn’t be entitled to what socialism has to offer. I would either be a freeloader, or I wouldn’t have things.
Maybe a socialist-capitalist hybrid Frankenstein’s monster borg stitching would suit me.

Well socialists tend to believe in what are called positive rights (as well as negative rights).

Negative rights are those that the libertarians strongly support. They include the freedom of speech and religion, and could be described as “rights of non-interference.” As in, you can say what you want and believe what you want and no one will come to arrest you.

Positive rights are concerned with providing people with their basic necessities, like food, water, shelter, etc. Socialists would be the last people to deprive you of these, even if you didn’t work. Would you be forced to work in a socialist society? I would hope not. Oscar Wilde made a good point that if people were forced to work under socialism, it would make it worse than capitalism.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Lately I've been thinking that socialism is a pretty good idea.

Originally posted by SpearDudezor:

But I don’t want to work like a pleb
I want to go on adventures and pay if I want something

Under socialism, you would have to work less than you would under capitalism. When the workers are in charge, they’d be willing to provide longer vacations and shorter workdays. Overtime, as technology improves, the amount of work any individual would have to put in would be negligible.

About the “pay if you want something,” assuming it was like a movie or game, it would be provided to you for free since all art would be in the public domain. If it’s a material object, those would be more affordable to you, since there’s no capitalist taking a chunk out of your wage.

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / I was going to write a riveting and intellectual post that would show an interesting viewpoint on politics that would rival the works of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx, but then I remembered that you all are dullards that wouldn't understand the first word.

Of course the first step of convincing others that you’re right is to insult their intelligence, right?

Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Lately I've been thinking that socialism is a pretty good idea.

First, to clear up any misconceptions, I will describe, as simply as I can, what socialism is:

Socialism is the collective control of the means of production by the working class.

By collective control, this could be considered to be democratic control, in that the the means of production would be treated as public property. Of course, in order for there to be actual “collective control,” this means that there must be a way for the general public to decide what is done with the means of production. The simplest means to allow the general public to have this control is through a democratic government, so it could be said that democracy is essential to socialism. To make that clear, socialism is not antidemocratic.

By means of production, this refers to factories, large scale farms, airports, studios, roads, power plants, and generally everything that is used to make, move, and do things on a large scale. It does not include the clothes you wear or the house you live in. In other words, socialism is not about making your personal belongings public property.

By the working class, that means basically everyone in society. Socialists divide society into two groups, those who work for a living (the proletariat), and those who exploit the labor of others so that they do not need to work (the bourgeoisie). Under socialism, everyone would share the burden of work equally, so everyone would fall under the category of working class. Basically, if you are not a huge business owner raking in millions (or billions) every year, then you are part of the proletariat and stand to benefit from socialism.

On a related note, you may be familiar with the word “communism,” which is certainly related to socialism. Communism, as Karl Marx described it, was a Utopian stateless, classless, moneyless society where everything was fine and dandy for everyone. Marx believed that the way to achieve communism is by going through socialism (as in, having the workers take control of the means of production). Essentially, you can be a socialist without necessarily being a communist, but you can’t really be a communist without being a socialist, since, as Marx believed, socialism was a necessary stepping stone to communism.

Now that I’ve handled the basic definitions of socialist terms, I guess I’ll get into the meat of how socialism is actually beneficial to society. While there are numerous topics I could choose from, I’ll stick to topics relating to the mechanization of labor, the environment, consumerism, and the distribution of art.

In regards to the mechanization of labor, I am referring to the various technological methods (robotics, computers, etc.) that can replace workers. Under capitalism, this is very bad for workers, but under socialism, it is highly beneficial. Under capitalism, when a factory owner buys some new robotic arms to assemble his products, that means he can lay off his workers, which is good for himself, since he no longer has to pay wages, but bad for his workers, since they lose their jobs and thus their means of survival. However, under socialism, since everyones needs would be provided for unconditionally, when the robotic arms come in to replace the workers, that means the workers get more free time!

But let’s think of this same topic in more abstract terms. If, through technology or some other means, a factory is able to be made twice as productive. This means that the workers can either (a) work just as much and produce twice of what they did before, or they can (b) work half as much and produce the same as they had before. Under capitalism, the business owner would be the one to decide what to do with this increased productivity. He would undoubtedly choose the first option since that means he could potentially double his profits, but also because he would be afraid of any of his competitors gaining an advantage over him. Under socialism, the workers would be the ones to decide what to do with the extra productivity, and they may very well choose the latter, which means that they can have more time for leisure and enjoying life. Essentially, under capitalism, increasing productivity almost never benefits the workers, but under socialism, it is a force for liberation.

Moving on to environmental issues, I believe that a socialist society would be better equipped to prevent environmental catastrophes and respond to resource shortages than a capitalist one. I saw a documentary a while ago titled Pandora’s Promise which made the case that nuclear energy is not as dangerous or environmentally harmful as people claim and would be a suitable replacement for fossil fuels. However, even if you find nuclear energy to not be the solution to the energy crisis, let’s say that, hypothetically, a miracle source of energy was found that was plentiful, cheap, and environmentally safe. How would it make an entry into a capitalist society that already relied on fossil fuels? Those who own the oil and coal companies would fight it until every last person on Earth choked from smog, but they could also use their leverage to turn the general public away from it too. Living in the Appalachian region, I am all too familiar with the roadsigns that read, “Stop the war on coal; fire Obama!” Under the capitalist system, the workers have a reason to be opposed to new forms of energy, since it means that they would be unemployed during the transition to it. However, under socialism, since everyones needs would be provided for unconditionally, no one would suffer from the transition to new forms of energy. It also means that there would be no business owners worried about their own profits to be opposed to the transition.

Moving on to the issue of consumerism, I’m sure you’re all familiar with obtrusiveness of advertising in our modern day lives. Advertisements are there to constantly remind us that we should not be satisfied with what we currently have. They tell us to buy more and more, and if you give into their little spell, you’ll find that there is always more to be bought and that you will never be satisfied with what you have. This is because the goal of consumerism under capitalism is not to satisfy customers, but to pull as much profit from them as possible. This leads to such wonderful things like planned obsolescence. It’s why a new iPhone comes out every year. It’s because those who sell the products don’t want customers to be eternally satisfied, but are kept perpetually hungry for more. This also leads to some moral issues when you consider fields such as medicine, where drug companies have more of an incentive to provide temporary treatments instead of permanent cures. Under socialism, the goal would be to provide for people’s needs instead of supplying someone with profit, so products could actually be satisfying to consumers.

Finally, I will discuss the issue of art. Under capitalism, there is a concept of copyright law, which exists solely for the creator of some kind of art (or whoever the artist sold the rights to) to profit from it. Under socialism, there would be no such thing as copyright law. Instead, all art would be released into the public domain. While a capitalist might argue that since an artist cannot profit from his work, this would remove the incentive to produce art. However, I argue that those who produce art solely for profit likely produce shallow pieces at best. There are plenty of reasons for someone to produce art: to entertain, to provide social commentary, to stretch the imagination, and so on. If the profit was removed, people would still produce art, but for art’s sake, which would mean the art would be much more meaningful and of a higher quality. Not only that, but going with that point I keep hammering about everyones needs being unconditionally met, socialism would also dispel the stereotype of the “starving artist.”

Continuing with the topic of art, some of you may be familiar with the so-called “crime” of internet piracy, which is declared a crime because of copyright law. However, under socialism, what we call piracy would just simply be a way for music, films, games, and other media to be freely distributed in society.What this means is that all those forms of art you know and love—from Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony to Pokemon—would be free and accessible to everyone. It would enrich society so that no one would be deprived from the fruits of our culture due to the misery of poverty.

If you’re curious and would like to know more, Here are some relevant videos:

Against Capitalism – Jerry Cohen
Introduction to Marxism – Richard D. Wolfe

I wish I could have been more brief with this, but when it comes to explaining and arguing for an entire ideology, it’s difficult to be brief.

Any questions, comments, or rebuttals?