Eh, I dunno that I’d actually characterize him as a liberal so much as him being an authoritarian that just pushed whatever happened to serve him at any point. Kinda in the same vein of fascists not having any economic ideology, just whatever serves their ideal of the state at any given moment. So yeah, I certainly agree with your sentiment that Stalin certainly was not a communist, but more because he only cared about gaining/maintaining power rather than actually subscribing to any economic theory.

… that restaurant?

I’m struggling with answering this question. I mean, obviously, I don’t know. I could give an opinion on what I think is most likely to happen, but what does it matter? Like, legitimately, what does it matter? And I do mean it earnestly, what would it matter even if I just so happened to be right about my speculation?

We all certainly hope that 2025 will be better. But I think the important thing to remember is that 2025 being better is possible. In fact, I used to be a homophobic ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian bigot. In my remorse over the person I used to be, I noticed I felt shame rather than self-righteousness over my condemnation of people just being who they are. In my longing to undo the evil I committed in the past, I realized I have the opportunity to fight for good, even if it means fighting what feels like my own reflection. I got better. I still have a ways to go and even more internalized prejudice I need to demolish, but at least I know getting better is possible, because I did it before goddammit. And if a dickhead like me can be better, can’t we all?

And even if things just turn to absolute shit, I know I can at least make my tiny corner of the world a little bit brighter if I can make myself better. And you know what? I think it’s good enough for me to know that I can start doing something about that right now. Afterall, as Marcus Aurelius would say to himself; It is up to you!

Ooo man, this is a super underrated take. Too often people get caught up in what the law is trying to do, how people could get around it, and what the incentives/disincentives are, while not really taking into consideration how the law would actually operate. Sometimes people get all conspiratorial about it trying to point to ulterior motives, but man, most of the time it’s more that bad-faith actors are taking advantage of what’s already out there rather than actively creating the problems they want to create.

Civilization III Final Fantasy IX Valheim Kerbal Space Program Stellaris Empire Earth Borderlands 2 Morrowind Halo: Reach Rimworld

The must be mentioned: KOTOR Bioshock(and Infinite) Final Fantasy 4, 14, 5, 6 in that order AOE 2 Red Alert 2 Total War: Rome, Rome 2, Medieval 2, and Shogun Lords of the Realm 2 No Man’s Sky Horizon series Space Empires V Battlefield 1942 Medal of Honor(the first one from the 90’s, not that bullshit reboot from 2010) Smash Bros Melee, 64, Brawl in that order Crysis Warcraft II: The Tides of Darkness Theme Hospital MDK2 Chrono Trigger

It was tough leaving some of those mentioned ones out of the top ten, but the top ten belong where they are for me for how definining they were/are for me.

Exactly. It’s absurd to say the designers of any system absolutely intended any and all outcomes of said system, in the same way It’s absurd to attribute someone’s intent as whatever you deem to be the outcome. To kind of bring it all around, it’s absurd to say the designers of our overall system legitimately intended all the flaws that came with it. In fact, with things like the [American] Healthcare system, it wasn’t really “designed” so much as it kinda happened. The heuristic to think of the system as working as intended is a great way to analyze it and all, but it’s still important to keep in mind that the illuminati wasn’t up there wringing their hands and cackling about how much suffering the barbaric American Healthcare System would cause.

I’m not sure why you got down-voted for this as I think you illustrate the intent of the above-mentioned heuristic quite well. The intent of the heuristic isn’t to objectively define what the purpose of a system is(because, well… lol), but to change the framing of it in order to better understand it’s function and how well it serves it’s “purpose”. People who design and implement these systems tend to become married to the idea of that system just needing a tweak here and there to finally serve it’s purpose 100%, usually without considering that the system may already be working optimally.

The reason I think your example of the Healthcare System(in America to be specific) is a great example is that those who are served by said system see it’s flaws first-hand versus those who design and maintain it. To the individual(s) on the receiving end, the purpose of the system is effectively something completely different than the original purpose given. To then apply the framing that the purpose of the Healthcare system is to add stress, bankrupt the sick, skyrocket costs, make people die from neglect, etc, we then see the system not as a flawed one that just needs a few tweaks, but as fundamentally missing the mark before it’s epistemological foundation is even laid. We’re able to get the engineers see what the maintenance crew sees, so to speak.

What the heuristic doesn’t do is objectively establish the purpose of a system. That’s silly, as purpose is necessarily subjective. I think our boy was trying to find a way of not only better analyzing a system, but to also help the designers of those systems see it from the perspective of those on the receiving end. What better way than to think of a system as working exactly as intended?

As for me, I think we tend to subconsciously project our intent into the world, effectively turning our framing of things we do/create as objectively inheriting the purpose we had in mind, regardless of the outcome. This can really muddy the waters with what we mean when we discuss something like purpose, which I suspect is the source of apparent confusion within this particular thread. Purpose being subjective, it will change from person to person, and purpose being subjective, it’s a poor indicator of how a system functions.

Oh shit! Independent Fundamental Baptist! I had to deal with living with that shit, too. At the end of the day, if the king james bible was good enough for Peter and Paul, it’s good enough for me. Also, rock music is the devil.

Damn, man. You really gotta call out my disengaged ass, don’t you? I think you make an extremely important and overlooked point here. In any kind of social movement it’s imperative that you gain a following for that movement. On an individual level, you do that with good reasoning and specifically not using unnecessary antagonism. It reminds me of all the leftists who were recently bemoaning all the apathy in the 2016 election for what they perceived as “I like whichever candidate, but their supporters were mean to me”. I mean, they’d be correct that this is a childish reason to disengage completely, but these are the exact same people you need to join in your social movement. Too many times we get so obsessive with the academic structure of a movement that we become blind to the world that would benefit from it. We forget that we need to find a way that others would be receptive to our message in how we present it. Truth at all costs is admirable on the surface, but how admirable can it be when the cost is mass dismissal because we felt entitled to be antagonistic toward those who don’t agree yet? So maybe I should put childish ways behind me and begin engaging with others in charitable and good faith.

Oh my god, that’s something that gets under my skin so very quickly and it’s sadly so common. It’s such a specifically arrogant kind of strawmanning where you’re telling someone else what they think sometimes even in direct contradiction to what they say. Like “you’re just jealous” or “you just want to ____”. It just reeks of anti-intellectualism and everyone is worse off with every use. We desperately need more people to learn the principles of philosophy, and maybe even more specifically of epistemology.