You must be one of the Inebriati

Then it’s not satire.

IDK, the Altman talk a few days ago sounded a lot like bargaining.

Frankly, looking at the “romance” section, that may be an outdated stereotype.

Either that, or “extreme” is doing a lot of legwork in that sentence.

…I mean the joke still works. So, yes?

The same argument, from the opposite side, is made by Bob Altmeyer in “The Authoritarians”: there is a psychological profile defined by a desire to be, and have everyone else be, a cog in the machine - the purpose of which is entirely irrelevant.

Public Security Section 9, you say?

Hah, bunny suicides.

If I remember Devereaux, the village itself was set up to minimise that risk first and foremost, at the expense of optimisation for max yields. So, every year was around subsistence, never much above, but also never much lower.

Not just new, but specifically January 13th.

EDIT: It seems someone doesn’t like being noticed.

EDIT2: It seems someone forgot not to use bot accounts on a “private” “family” server easily traceable to a full name, job, and private webpage, Mr. Senior Information Security Engineer.

To be fair, you also went to war because the fuckers shot first.

…I have to say, “beer from the woods” sounds a lot better than I’d’ve thought.

Frankly, I can easily imagine them going “hey let’s got for a beer and see which one of our two paranoiacs freaks out first”.

Well, it is, once again, a brand new account that just posts comics and barely comments.

What I miss from RES is that the tag used to link to the comment the tag was made on.

Which, hilariously, neatly matches the machine-learning approach of “just keep shovelling data, it’ll work eventually”.

Is… Tharg unusual? Like, the rest are exaggerated for humor, but I’ve met more than one Tharg. Hell, at one point if I switched majors I’d be Tharg.

Why “overall”? What makes you think capitalism, as a system, cares about the economy “overall”?

…Y’know what, let’s try and dumb this down a bit, middle school style:

1. The post you’re replying to accentuates the words good and bad. Why is that?
2. When the post talks about actions, what adjectives are used to describe them? How does that relate to the actors doing them? What is the causal relation implied?
3. The action used in the post is genocide - why is that, in particular used as an example? Is the post justifying genocide? What does the example of genocide mean for the causal relation implied?
4. What is the opinion of the author on the sentiments expressed in the post?
5. Does the post take a stance on real-world political actors? Does the post even mention any? If so, does it justify them, or condemn them?

No, see, we are good persons, and they are bad, so when they do genocide, it’s bad, because they’re bad, but when we do it, it’s good, because we’re good!