Messages

+1

Bear in mind I am that one guy that eats all the lore you lay down.

Happy birthday buddy, 24 is okay but 25 is actually decent so like, good things ahead

Ah I love them, aloof, effortless, feckless, lazy, a disarming aura, an air of mystery. Beautiful decadence, prideful narcissism. Prone to flights of fancy, stunned by beauty, innately more 'human' than most creatures of darkness.


They're very much 'twilight/true blood' vampires which gives them a bad rap. Having said that I love playing this super casual being with sudden bursts of energy and glaring weakness


Musically I'd have to find something that just sounds good and it's innately cool without trying. Loathe to say it but Beatles maybe? I'll look into it.

Yeah exactly! To me that style of a distracting foreground ringing above a backline is how I play my Malks Although I based my own loon off the Malk progenitor from VtM:B video game who had a very sound mind but episodes of insanity. Also mixes with what I've personally witnessed of mental illness because great RP is based on real life


If you're curious, Toreador is my favoured type, Malk is a very close second though!

I like it, Sabbat is the official title for the antagonists in english version (even though it is the same word and origin as sabbath).

I love both your ideas on Malkavian musical taste. For me; I'd play one song on top of another. Something like: In the House, In a Heartbeat - John Murphy underneath Invaders Must Die - Prodigy because to me one of the hallmarks of playing a Malkavain is being of two (or more) minds. A constant background element of some affliction, be it visions, a great plan, voices while at the same time being very much in the present with your other half screaming, fighting, painting, laughing, crying.

Or even an audio book version of Paradise Lost over Clubbed to Death - Matrix Soundtrack.

I like and approve this message, was generally my thoughts on him as well.


Overall I think I agree with him on most things and yeah the bible stuff he does is *fascinating*.


I do however think that because a lot of what he says is logically complicated and requires almost by definition a combination of abstractions and rational analytic thinking, that his message can be misinterpreted by people especially if they fall into the trap he's trying to prevent of liking or hating him too much.

Yeah no problem, thanks for your input Jub, I really appreciate it I know I pushed a little but I kinda really want to know both sides of what he's talking about because yes, he is a pedagogue as far as I can tell but also seems to say some smart things. I can't tell if his thing is a cult or sense, I guess I have to make up my own mind in the end but I wanted a rebuttal, so thank you

What critiques is he making of historical theories? Do you mean his hatred of Marxism and the like or something else?


And what's his version of modern humanities faculties? I don't think I've seen him talk about either especially.


His lectures I've seen have been anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-sjw, anti-postmodernist and cites research done into animal behaviour, how hierarchies are stable, that equal outcome is undesirable in a civilised country but equal opportunity and fairness is eminently desirable and a lot of stuff tied to religion, music, humanism etc.

There is both more and less to the C16 thing than just C16 where Peterson is concerned. It's the most talked about thing about him so forgive me if you already know this but I feel like it's crucial context. In one of the Canadian universities (Toronto I think, where he has tenure, not sure) he was giving a speech about whatever, doesn't matter, and during the questions he was asked what he'd do if he was fined for not calling someone by their choice of pronoun, he said he wouldn't pay it and face jail time. He would have been doing something illegal but not criminal, under their laws. Again, not taking a side but he's not wrong that he could face sanctions for not using xe etc.



He's of the mind that his discipline is a social science and he's a big fan of sociology and history, he has a great knowledge of 1900s history especially so I don't think it's fair to say he dismisses social science or humanities :/


Given his usage of the terms I took it for granted he was talking about social structures, I get the impression he doesn't subscribe to political stances because he's all about defining people by what they have, where they are, how successful the are, their personality types and not at all concerned with how people describe themselves or even seemingly peoples potential. I don't think he's wrong and I don't think it's even that extreme of a view but it's not 'nice'. And I don't mean that disparagingly either, being nice is really important.

No idea why I went on a binge watch of his stuff, I feel like I learned something about directness and logic.

Interesting. Not saying I agree or disagree with either him or you but I think you've misheard or been misled about a couple of his points.


He doesn't ignore socialisation as an effect on character traits, he actively addresses it with his look into Scandinavia and how despite their highest level of equality and such that males are 20:1 of engineers and females are 20:1 of nurses or similar statistic, that a trend towards equality maximises gender differences (taken this from another video of his at a university).


I also disagree that he he's merging the two; he states that the two traits which indicate competence (intelligence and conscientiousness) are the traits which lead to higher paid jobs, backed by his studies (disagree on whether his studies are valid if you like) but he doesn't say competence at an individual job leads to higher pay at that job. Game theory (if I'm using the same LSE version you are) requires that people always maximise outcome and that all players know all the rules; he states that people with a higher agreeableness trait don't, they don't know how to get a 'best' outcome. Again, not saying I agree with him or not (not made up my mind yet) but that I seem to be getting a different message.


He's definitely not inconsistent I really don't think you can apply that to him at all. His stance has always been that legislation should not tell us which language we have to use. This has a very important distinction (one which he's forced to make repeatedly) from language we can't use (racial slurs etc.). One can certainly make a case that trans people need pronouns and he's wrong to wholly dismiss all of them.


I can also tell you where he gets his ideas of postmodernism from, Jaques Derrida, who was a marxist and later a postmodernist. Peterson believes that the link between the two is that marxists were/are in favour of empowering the oppressed working class to rise up against the capitalist class and that Jaques Derrida changed the language but not the sentiment. Instead of economic situation he called it power and instead of working class vs capitalist class he calls them oppressed vs oppressor. - loosely paraphrased from various videos. I believe that he's comparing similarities because he sees them both as authoritarian left *in this instance with regards to activists who are pro-article c16*.


I think it's a little unkind to not give him more credit, the guy is a genius to some degree. His analytical skills a phenomenal (even if you disagree with his ideas that come about from the analytics he does). I have to admit I find him a very captivating speaker but he's speaking on things I have, at the moment, limited experience of and as such I find it difficult to wholly agree or disagree with him.

Have a gander at this one dudes and let me know what you think. Gender pay gap, postmodernism and lobsters.

Wb penty

Yeah I'm usually against no platforming also, with the same general stipulations. I still think Jews are targeted unfairly by UK media especially indie groups and I think some people are too quick to claim anti-zionism when they're being anti-semetic. Also I'm pro-state of israel so hey I'm biased. I don't think unis should be fined. Basically I don't think that the people who decide on who gets a platform would care if the uni was fined or not.


Surely if you really wanted to damage someones image you'd let them speak and just record the lack of audience or the awkward questions they can't answer. Idk.

This song has so many layers, it's absolutely fantastic. One of my favourite songs of theirs and I think perhaps one of their best technical works, the background is so evocative, it feels like it goes somewhere and has an intangibility to the sadness of it. So great.


Dethklok - Galaxy

Yeah people make a fuss over anything. I'm not even one of the ones that actually dislikes the film though, I just see a lot of flaws in it.

PS. Episode 8 was so off key. I think it was a good film, had some good Star Wars EU stuff in it

I mean I think this was mainly a discussion but hey; thanks for indulging me in some star wars

I just really didn't get why you (or any other number of people, 'cause gods know you're not alone) could get so riled up over a scene like that...

Cringing is like a really low-key reaction, 'so riled up' is way out of scope. I'm slightly put out over it. This sort of thing makes me think you have an agenda because you're projecting and implying emotion I'm not conveying. If I'd said 'This scene pisses me off so much' and not 'this scene is cringeworthy' then you'd be right to say I was riled.

having his shirt off is fine, I am all for hot guys with their shirts off. Ren doesn't do it for me at all though, Finn or Poe, sure.

I'm not sure why, because you apparently meant it differently, but that seemed to me like you didn't like Ren, but I see now that I have obviously misinterpreted that...

Uh yeah, just because I don't think someone's attractive has no bearing on whether I like the person. I am perfectly happy to enjoy the company of ugliness or find beautiful, vapid, vanity wanting.

Really, can't you? Is that from personal experience, because I'm pretty sure that supposedly it's impossible to lift cars without training either, and there's still mothers who manage quite well without any when their kids are in danger, just because the adrenaline kicks in...

Yeah exactly, lifting a car isn't a fine tuned skill - it's a raw application of strength; it's not like anyone has ever adrenaline-fuelled lockpicked without training in it. As well as that: Leia has no kids in danger to spike that motherly instinct.

I was merely suggesting that story telling is a lot like human history at some points... We occasionally chose to ignore things that happened or view them in a bit of a distorted light, just because it does not support our argument to look at the whole picture... The view point gets more objective the further away the historical period, but especially where wars are concerned, you often learn that the victors were "liberators" and that their arrival was "celebrated", when in reality, they were raping and pillaging everywhere they went to the effct that entire towns and villages packed up and fled, when they heard of their nearing approach...

That is a thing that exists but this isn't that. There isn't an nonobjective viewpoint because there isn't a viewpoint; we aren't shown purely from one characters perspective, we're given actions from all sides, the universe judges characters and we the audience are witnesses to events as they unfold not reviewing a historical account. This is shown by the types of shot made in the film; none are set up to deceive or subvert ways of thinking. The introduction present at the start of all core movies is establishing the information needed to be present in the moment and after that the pace and tone is set and the movie is a-go.

I mean in Rogue One it is totally acceptable for Cassian to shoot someone who gave him information, just so that guy can't tell on him, because he is the good guy, his morals are okay, but "good people sometimes have to make questionable choices, because if they don't, then the bad guys win"...

I don't remember anyone said it was 'okay because he's a good guy' the character was applauded for having something of an edge to him verses the plethora of vanilla characters in Star Wars. That's not the same as people saying his choices were morally right, just that they were interesting. I get the feeling we're crossing wires on when people like a character it doesn't mean that they have to also approve of their actions.

Exactly, they have been "lost", they have "failed"... That kind of terminology can be imprisoning as well, I have found...

Explicitly it says that the statues are to commemorate the lost, that the order failed, not the individuals. Terminology is only imprisoning within ones own mind.

See, now I am confused, because equal to the Sith and Jedi Code, there is a Grey Jedi Code, which centers around the terms "force" and "balance", so I'm not entirely sure how this is "just a fan appelation", because sure, the wish that Rey becomes a Grey Jedi, is a relatively new thing, but the Code is way older than that and I found it way before episode 7 aired...

This is from wookieepedia on the grey jedi;
" The concept of Jedi who have left the Order but not turned Sith or become Dark has been around at least since Episode 1 (Qui-Gon Jinn) and solidified with Knights the Old Republic (Jolee Bindo). However, an official organization has never been officially created, canon being content to portray Gray Jedi as rogues or exiles. This is one vision of an organized group of Gray Jedi with ambitions of actively pursuing further understanding of the Force beyond the scope of the Jedi Order. This article has multiple contributors who have each helped create this vision by either adding characters and storylines to give the Gray Order a place in the Universe or by developing the details of the Gray Order itself. Suggestions and new contributors are welcome, please begin a Discussion or comment below if you wish to suggest new content."

and on the grey jedi code;


"This page was created over a decade ago (in the SW Fanon site's heyday) and has undergone a lot of revision and discussion in that time. The current version is a relatively recent reworking, intended to be less of one individual's imagining and more relatable to the official lore. A lot of thought has been put into all of these revisions and discussion in the comments section is always taken into consideration."

Yeah, grey jedi order and grey jedi code are non-canon fan appelations. Although there is a group which calls themselves 'grey jedi order'; they're not the only grey jedi who have formed a group with a hierarchy similar to the jedi and each have their own raison d'etre and in each era the definition of what jedi do changes anyway, for a long time Star Wars canon hasn't had much set in stone and retcons abound.


Yeah looking into it The Clone Wars go into Dooku more and he's definitely a sith, you're totally right and I was totally wrong. I've not seen that, was just going by the movies. Though I still think there's argument to be made that he's a different type of sith to the cadre of sith lords before him.

You didn't offend me, I was just left feeling a little curious at something. I can't pinpoint it, just got a vibe and probably got a little defensive as a result.