Lone's recent activity
-
Comment on Americans here: what is right wing, what is left wing? in ~talk
-
Comment on Americans here: what is right wing, what is left wing? in ~talk
Lone LinkI was fortunate enough to have an educator in college express some concepts to me about the conservative (the "right wing" party in the United States) part of the US that helped make sense to me...- Exemplary
I was fortunate enough to have an educator in college express some concepts to me about the conservative (the "right wing" party in the United States) part of the US that helped make sense to me as someone who has far more liberal ("left wing") views. One of the keys to the expression that was presented to me, was that you can imagine the political spectrum as a circle, because as soon as you reach the extreme of either spectrum, you start see more similarities between them than you do differences. The content changes, but the approaches start to sound more and more similar. (And this is apparently being expressed as the horseshoe theory of political theory, which another poster correctly identified above!)
It's far easier to define what a conservative is "against" as opposed to what they "for." It's important not to laugh at that concept, because conservative could be best described as resistance to change. The conservative wing is against the prospect of gay marriage because it's changing the common concept of marriage being between "one man and one woman." You can see a similar resistance to concepts like polygamy, polyamory, or any other non-tradition form of relationship. This isn't because conservatives hate gay people, or because you can't possibly love two people. This is rooted in the idea of "Why do you need to change this? Why aren't things acceptable as they are?" The maintenance of the current or long-standing norms, this is the core of the conservative politic viewpoint.
However, in the US, we suffer the consequences of realistically only having two political parties, and a democracy effectively designed to only utilize two political parties. This has forced any non-Republican or non-Democrat party to either collapse into the party that most resembles their point of view, or to effectively be doomed to irrelevance in the political landscape. The Tea-Party phenomena of the early 2010's really exhibits this. They collapsed into the "far right" wing of the Republican party, even if their views are realistically more in line with a stereotypical Libertarian political view. This, as a result, hybridizes the Republican party, forming a sort of coalition, wherein we see aspects of the different segments of the party collide, or even actively fight against themselves. (Again, see the lame-duck sessions of the US Congress during the 2010's.)
That said, the current Republican party consistent of both fiscal and social conservatives, religious evangelicals, defense hawks, and neoconservatives. They have a strong focus on lack of large government structures outside of those defined in the US Constitution, and generally believe that the best federal level government, is a government that is less involved in their day-to-day lives.
The current Democratic party consists more traditionally Liberal (note that I'm not referring the lowercase "liberal" as in "more free" term. Liberalism in the United States is pretty well detailed here: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States ) and I'm referring to the Liberalism defined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism )) leaning aspects of the American population. This means a coalition of social, religious, identity, and fiscal egalitarians. The modern Democratic party seems to be more focused on the equality of as many different groups of people as possible. The Democratic party generally believes in the active role of the federal government to participate in the lives of the citizens, in order to generate the equal opportunity of as many people as possible.
I didn't specifically try to state many stances, because I think it's important to understand that each member of a political party, particularly in the United States, will have wildly different views due to the inherit need of any person to really partake in a political party in order to actually participate in the political process. Independents, while they exist, are rarely capable of generating enough capital to be elected in the modern environment.
-
Comment on What do you Tilderinos think about chillhop and other down-tempo genres? in ~music
Lone LinkI was introduced to Blackmill by my fiancé to my great life improvement. Chillstep has found its way into my work life as a way to focus or relax. I found it interesting that it fill both roles...I was introduced to Blackmill by my fiancé to my great life improvement. Chillstep has found its way into my work life as a way to focus or relax. I found it interesting that it fill both roles for me.
Perhaps it’s my tinnitus that makes me excessively compelled to hearing music constantly, or just the fact that it’s been around me all my life that compels time to always listen to something. Chillstep is something both my fiancé and I enjoy, and can play constantly in the background for good life ambience
-
Comment on Suggestion: recruit fewer people from reddit in ~tildes
Lone LinkRecruiting from Reddit makes sense. When you walk into someplace new, do you automatically assume that everything you know about the place you were just in applied to the new location? An example:...Recruiting from Reddit makes sense.
When you walk into someplace new, do you automatically assume that everything you know about the place you were just in applied to the new location?
An example: I walk into a Jewish temple, as someone who only attended a Sufi mosque in the past. Would I naturally assume that everything I know about the mosque automatically apply to the temple? It’s a different environment that you need to observe to understand before you participate. The same thing happens the first time someone who only lived in the United States walks off a plane in Pakistan. You don’t assume the places have the same social norms, culture, or history.
I don’t think a website with a community operates differently. As a community with invites, you have the capability to influence the culture in a small way by inviting an insightful member of Reddit, or a trolling YouTube commenter. Your decision to be an early adopter of this site means your choices have a larger than normal consequence than someone who enters the site later, after the culture is established.
Invite people who you want to be around, who offer a unique perspective, who can express opinions in a way that your feel contributes to the community, who may be an expert in diffusing online arguments, or maybe would have their life enriched by having a community around them.
-
Comment on Any D&D players around? How'd your last session go? in ~games.tabletop
Lone LinkI’ll go ahead and assume that Starfinder counts close enough to D&D to merit commentary here ;). We just ran a Skittermander unlocking module today, and I think I learned what I dislike about...I’ll go ahead and assume that Starfinder counts close enough to D&D to merit commentary here ;).
We just ran a Skittermander unlocking module today, and I think I learned what I dislike about living module style RPGs. The modules feel excessively focused on doing some formulaic combo of fight, skill checks, fight, skill checks. The story feels so disconnected because of its rigidity mechanically. I know when I’m doing something that isn’t intended when I get a non-response from my GM about my actions.
Once I start to feel this railroad, I stop exploring. I stop feeling a drive to search around because I know the mission, I might as well go do it, and most of time, searching everything results in nothing special happening.
It has been eye-opening as someone who played Table top RPGs for around 15 years, and never having done modules before, to experience first hand.
-
Comment on Let's see some WoW posts. With this update to Night Elf guards, what do you think of the concept of heritage armor for non-allied races? in ~games
Lone LinkI think it probably serves an important role in fleshing out the existing races without robbing them of their identity by making everyone else “more interesting”. The classic races shouldn’t feel...I think it probably serves an important role in fleshing out the existing races without robbing them of their identity by making everyone else “more interesting”.
The classic races shouldn’t feel bland or boring, or like they are missing content that Allied races have merely by their coming before Allied races. If nothing else, it’s refreshing to see run of the mill orcs, night elves, dwarves, and trolls.
-
Comment on What books are you reading right now? in ~talk
Lone Link ParentThat’s about how far along I am at this point. I appreciate the pacing now, and I would be curious what you think of it after 10 or so chapters down the road.That’s about how far along I am at this point.
I appreciate the pacing now, and I would be curious what you think of it after 10 or so chapters down the road.
-
Comment on What books are you reading right now? in ~talk
Lone Link ParentThe first book is so engaging, and I’m only ten or so chapters into it How do you enjoy the pacing compared to the show up to where you are in the book?The first book is so engaging, and I’m only ten or so chapters into it
How do you enjoy the pacing compared to the show up to where you are in the book? -
Comment on What books are you reading right now? in ~talk
Lone LinkI just started working on “The Path of Heaven” by Chris Wraight. I’m a big fan of the 40k universe and I’ve recently gotten on a White Scars kick. I’m not a big fan of the extensive focus on the...I just started working on “The Path of Heaven” by Chris Wraight. I’m a big fan of the 40k universe and I’ve recently gotten on a White Scars kick.
I’m not a big fan of the extensive focus on the Emperor’s Children thus far, but I’m optimistic. The White Scars are one of the only Codex Compliant legions I really enjoy reading about anymore.
Roughly, yes :).
Under Democratic Party, you may better abbreviate "larger federal government ensuring equality" to something more along the lines of "Larger federal government. Ensuring equal opportunity." The reality of life is that some people are born into a situation with parents that are incredibly wealthy, socioeconomically. The Democratic party is generally interested in bringing the lowest common denominator up as high as possible.
The final entry on the Left side, might best be described as "Equal Opportunity" versus "Equality". The Republican party itself, as far as I can ascertain, is more concerned with your ability as an individual to ascend to any height you are willing to work toward ("Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" fallacy.) rather than ensuring that by being born in the wrong neighborhood, or being born with a different skin tone, or being born with or without specific sexual organ(s), or being born to a fiscally poor family will have minimal impact on your ability to experience an equal amount of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness as someone who may have a different gender, sexual orientation, religious belief structure, culture, skin tone, or otherwise.
The table is definitely an oversimplification, but if you are not from the United States, I wouldn't expect someone to have a perspective that reached much further than what your table portrays. As a citizen of the United States, I hardly know the names of the United Kingdom's political parties, much less their stances, philosophies or otherwise. If you are from/living in, the United States, you probably need to dig a bit deeper into it.