Syfri

Many people know of the idea of "extraversion" and "introversion", which were coined by Jung. Few actually know what that word actually means. It's commonly believed that if you are extraverted, you must be social, and that if you are introverted you must be closed off. This simply is not true. When Jung discovered these concepts, it was due to a need to resolve a debate among psychoanalysts at the time over whether people were more object-focused or more subject-focused in reality. This references in some ways the subject-object problem. "A simple common differentiation for subject and object is: an observer versus a thing that is observed. In certain cases involving personhood, subjects and objects can be considered interchangeable where each label is applied only from one or the other point of view. Subjects and objects are related to the philosophical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity: the existence of knowledge, ideas, or information either dependent upon a subject (subjectivity) or independent from any subject (objectivity)." -Wikipedia Jung's understanding is that some people were more innately subject-focused and some were more innately object-focused. Some are more subjective and some are more objective. In today's world of course, we tend to value the objective over the subjective, possibly because the ideas of the objective are easier to share between all people, and therefore may be more likely to be relevant to ourselves. The subjective however is very important, as it is essential in understanding ourselves, and our fellow human beings. The reason we're seeing terms like "social introvert" today is simply because people fail to understand what these terms are to begin with. I would be considered a social introverted. My dominant cognitive function is "introverted intuition" (Ni) but my secondary function is "extraverted feeling" (Fe). Fe is a very social function, and it is the primary way with which I interact with the world. Despite the fact that I am introverted, I can seem very extraverted to people! There are extroverts who can seem introverted due to their higher level functions not necessarily being geared as much towards communication. Everyone must be capable of some extraversion and some introversion. If this was not the case, you would see people only be stuck in the world around them or only stuck in their heads with no capability to do the other. Sometimes people do try to ignore one, frequently due to some neurosis, but that is a story for another day.

@MattisRedacted @Joominmames You know exactly what I'm referring to.

@Vatesian @Joominmames Rome? The Rome that no longer existed at the time he was writing?

Medieval Historians: “The Dark Ages is a term that doesn’t actually reflect what was going on at the time, and it’s deeply misleading in essentially every way.” This dumb fuck:

@KaiserLoengramm Bingo

There’s a million reasons why vote for the left to accelerate is complete retardation, but the basis is that they only conceive of politics as this entity they cannot influence, change or join, only that they can vote yes or no. They have no agency. All of them are prole-minded.

Yeah. I've read Gildas. He was begging Rome to save them from the peoples that were moving in to Britain. There's a lot less writing about what happens afterwards, and we rely largely on archaeological record for that. Not the point you thought it was. There are similar writings in France just prior to the rise of the Merovingians.

@Vatesian @Joominmames We don’t lack records. Gildas was writing about the regression of British society in real time.

@TitusMariu17365 @Oswald_A_Lisker @shoe0nhead @PostLeftWatch Oh it sucked here before the third worlders. Guy you are responding to is right but there's more things than that fucking up our healthcare.

@Oswald_A_Lisker @shoe0nhead @PostLeftWatch Dude...Im a Polak who lives in Germany. Believe me, social health care can work. So long as you dont invite millions of Third Worlders who never payed into it but suck it dry.

She's still totally a leftist, you guys

@Joominmames @MattisRedacted We lack those historical records because it was a Dark Age.

@MattisRedacted It's called the dark ages because we lack historical records from the era not because it was the darkest time for humanity

You might have a point if it wasn't for the fact that the newer games are filled with incoherent writing, and incoherency is a very clear downgrade. Preferring that sort of writing means that even if you did play the older material, you still wanted to eat the slop anyways. I don't really think we should be letting the slop eaters run the show.

@Comrade_Del @RazorwireRPG You don't KNOW that cause you aren't those players/fans. Your ASSUMING they don't know about 1-3 or NV you ASSUME they don't really want what 4 was. You're not the arbiters of the franchise and you don't have to advocate for anyone but yourself. Get off your high horses

If Fallout 5 dropped tomorrow with a commitment to roleplaying, player agency and nuanced complex storytelling, I would be the first person to advocate for it. What Modern Fallout fans don't seem to understand about us Whiny Oldheads is that we want Fallout to be better. We don't want a generation of fans playing buggy skinner box doll dress up games. We want fans to experience the kinds of dark, fun and interesting roleplaying we had playing Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas. You might think you don't deserve better, so we'll decide for you. It's in your best interest to raise your standards and expect better of the entertainment you consume.

@KaiserLoengramm In hindsight, I was too much of a cunt to you. I'll accept my lashes.

You have to be actually retarded. Pilgrims literally installed state religion, and did things like execute Quakers under a theocratic regime. Washington was literally ordering his officers to attend Christian churches because they owed a duty to God to do so, for his guiding hand in their war. And Providence is not “deist code.” It was used by all kinds of Christians, including complete zealots. John Winthrop, in his sermon City on a Hill, uses it twice, the same sermon in which he explains that they are settling in the new world to provide a shining Christian example of piety to the world. Was John Winthrop a deist? Quakers, the most liberal of all in the new world, found Thomas Paine so abhorrent in his deism that because he refused to renounce his beliefs, refused to allow him to be interred in their cemetery, despite him being on his deathbed and pleading not to let his corpse rest alone, as no one would have him. And the Treaty of Tripoli? Of course that one comes out! It’s the only document you subversives know or point to, but you never would know that that one clause in it was rescinded in the second treaty, the actual circumstances around it, or what James McHenry, founding father and secretary of war had to say on it. “The Senate ... ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion.” You have to contend, with the fact that James McHenry is dumbfounded as to the wording of that treaty. That he cannot think of anything else America was founded on except for the Christian religion. If you even a shred of honesty, decency, or a care for truth and history, you will respond or recognize what I am saying. But you don’t. These words and men mean nothing to you. They’re just a tool for you to try and get other people to do what you want, using something you despise and hate just to achieve your ends. It’s disgusting.

@tropinnka @MalDungeonM @Aris_Utensil For there to be a proper debate, there needs to be fair rules. If you can't trust someone to be fair then you shouldn't engage.

@MalDungeonM @Aris_Utensil If having an online debate feels to you like getting murdered, maybe that just reflects what you think will happen.

You know when you have a legion of people all pissed off at you, any sane outsider will conclude the problem is you, especially when they talk to everyone your fat fаggоt ass, has pissed the fuck off. Saying "oh I've invited every rightoid who now hates me to debate me", especially when they were friends of yours at some point, and calling them cowardly doesn't make you look heroic, it makes you look like a fucking retard who's lacking in self awareness! There's a reason why everyone dunks on you, calling you a Lolcow, you wanker.

@TonyJack74 @Trierarch81 @JayMallow3 Didn't claim he was. Free Masons celebrate a lot of Catholic holidays. He was Christian.

@Vatesian @Trierarch81 @JayMallow3 Yet he wasn't a catholic

@Trierarch81 @JayMallow3 He went to traditional Catholic feastdays with the Masons though since they celebrate those.

@JayMallow3 George Washington wouldn’t even take communion.

@RazorwireRPG Man I'm going to make you real mad with this but in Medieval England forests were so picked clean of fallen sticks that there were rarely twigs. Wasteland would be clean by now

They do it for the vibes

@RazorwireRPG Eh I'll be honest, 2 is a big mess. The original is of course fantastic. It's really just 1 and New Vegas for me

My favourite kind of Fallout purist is someone who doesn't even think New Vegas deserves a spot alongside 1 and 2.

There's been plenty of cases where the threat of force allowed someone to gain institutional power. Peasant revolts don't work because peasants as a collective don't have a will to power. Point is that manipulating systems is playing into them in a way. What you need is to be able to crush the system. If you cheat, you will never be legitimate and you will be one day overthrown. Even if the collective has no will to power, they still get to decide who is legitimate. Many beheaded rulers learned that the hard way.

@Vatesian There’s never been an instance where it doesn’t come from someone using the existing structures, or quite strong parallel ones. Peasant revolts always get crushed.

I don’t think it’s possible in the modern era to have the exact ideological system of a monarchy, and ironically, with monarchy being largely a non ideological system and a result of natural human outgrowth, it’s artificial recreation is not only very unlikely to happen, but also quite silly. Hence, why the last European monarch to actually wield real power, Spain, just immediately gave it all away. And Spain had a large carlist movement, who were promised to attain this power, who had an actual successor, who had these lines to European royalty. Still, even with all that, instantly dead. Talking about monarchy in the American context is just even more ridiculous than this, and you ought to consider why Caesar didn’t call himself a king. All of that is ultimately just fantasy, play at something. You like the form of something in the past, but you fail to recognize the actual essence of monarchy, which can take plenty of different forms that are not outright declaring oneself a king. Titles don’t matter. King is just a word. I’d also appreciate you not just calling me an idiot, particularly when you do so with a regurgitated polemic I’ve already heard a hundred times before this and have thought about and developed a coherent answer for before I ever even bothered writing it out to you here and now. If you’re going to call me an idiot, please, give me a response that actually makes me have to think and consider my arguments just a little bit.

Eh fair enough, but it doesn't work that way just because you're in the military. Soldiers are going to necessarily follow you into a coup. What is needed is chaos like what Franco used. You have to be in the position where you represent a return of legitimate authority. Hitler played this to some effect with suppressing communist violence. Though he ultimately manipulated the system and is more of a dictator. Controlled violence is more likely to emerge from the people. The current government for instance is pretty impotent with dealing with a borderline uprising of retards and Karens in Minnesota. If things start getting really bad, and it will, all sorts of violence can and will emerge that the system will not be able to fully deal with. This will harm its legitimacy. If this cycle continues, then the person who will rule will be the one that can control the violence. At the end of the day that is always the one who rules.

I’m just advocating for doing whatever works. No matter what, system is used. If it’s violence then it arises out of the military. If it’s the democratic system it’s politicians and bureaucrats. That’s my point. I’m not advocating for any particular one. I’m pointing out that no matter what, people use the system as it exists. If you want it with violence in particular, best start working your way up the military.

@KaiserLoengramm Still love you homey

Okay, shouldn't have called you an idiot. This response shows that you're clearly not. I'll apologize for that. What I said wasn't really regurgitated though, it's a simple fact that you have to contend with. Dictatorships largely appear as part of civilization decline, or are harbingers of it. Monarchies represent a proper hierarchy dominated by force. It doesn't have to be literal European monarchies from centuries ago. This can take a lot of forms. And to be clear, Caesar effectively was King. His heirs.....eh, not so much. They used trickery rather than force and so they corrupted the institutions by becoming something that the institutions were never designed to handle. That in itself isn't much different than what happens in modern bureaucracy. >You like the form of something in the past My guy this is you. I just go with whatever works. You talk a big game but you're just a guy on twitter posting anime memes to depict yourself as the chad while you depict everyone else as the soyjak with the most pretentious self-aggrandizing and effeminate behavior I've seen in awhile. I don't even really care that you're like that, but you should really be aware before throwing stones in glass houses. What I'm really saying is that proper conquerors get to be in charge. That's the natural order, and how it will be when things are put right again. You're advocating for cheating democratic process (which is female-coded and based on social maneuvering) instead of using controlled violence to shape the world to your will (which is male-coded and how a government must be made).

@KaiserLoengramm Then you're an idiot. The most successful nations on earth had Monarchies.

@Vatesian Franco had a king succeed him. The first thing the king did was give up power and make a democracy. I don’t care for kings.

If you want to see democracy disbanded, then you need to work with and utilize democracy. It is literally the only way to make that happen. Every democracy that ever dissolved was dissolved by elected officials, or military officers leading coups, so those within the official governments apparatus. Cromwell, Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar, Franco, Mussolini, even the Bolsheviks all repeat this pattern. This pattern is repeated in the inverse as well, Cromwell both creating and dissolving democracy for example. The USSR overthrown and dissolved by the President of Russia. Spain went from a Kingdom to a democracy because the King who succeeded Franco decided it would be so. If you actually want to disband democracy, the literal only option is to use democracy, or the systems and power that exist. If you don’t want to use them, and instead retreat from them, then just admit you don’t want to disband democracy. It just makes you feel good to talk about it. Anyways, watch Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Once again, this is explained in perfect detail.

@KaiserLoengramm Well if you use democracy you just get dictators. I want Kings. You don't get proper authority without a real monopoly on force. Some ponce who manipulates a voting system is not the guy. You have a few good examples but most of those examples had the military or armed goons.

@Vatesian I’m quite fond of three of them. Regardless, the point is the historical pattern persists no matter what your opinion of them is.

@MeachamDr Oh hey you did a variation of this

“…sell all you have and give it to the poor…” Mark 10:21