the immortal science of treat-ism neoliberalism

"ok, so this is happening"

Worms Armageddon: it's your team of worms vs the opponent's, fighting with grenades, banana bombs, exploding sheep, etc. Recent stream of a league game:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1145566967?t=00h17m09s

It has endless customizability, and the maps you play on can be any 2D image. It's fun for casuals, but also the gameplay is deep and you can spend years getting really good at specific schemes. There are strategic schemes like Intermediate where you have 8 worms vs your opponents' 8 worms, Rope Races where you're just using the ninja rope, and tons more.

def the scene from DNA² that will always stay with me

this is a fucking sting operation isn't it

ah thanks; I'm tapping space a bunch between missions to skip the mission complete screen

and some missions need to be restarted several times just to make the right crates appear

what helped me get it was splitting the choices into 2 groups:

your door = 1/3 chance of winning total

all the other doors = 2/3 chance of winning total

say somebody gets to pick 'all the other doors' as an option; we know they have a 2/3 chance of winning

that chance will stay the same no matter what, since the goats/trains aren't getting reshuffled

so if doors get revealed as duds in this group, you would now just know that 2/3 can all be placed on whatever door(s) remain

basically this, I mean the gears couldn't possibly add that much extra force, or your punches would be lethal

so they're wearing these heavy ass things that maybe could realistically make them punch 1-2 times harder, in which case what's the point?

the concept would make way more sense if the gears involved armor for your entire upper body/face

love too offer a country the gift of less punishment

if we really believe in well-being for all conscious creatures, there's no reason to exclude the well-being of animals just because they live in a certain ecosystem, live a certain distance away from cities, aren't domesticated, etc

that said, we're powerless to reduce suffering in 'the wild' right now, except by not fucking things up for animals. we can avoid killing them ourselves at least, by managing global warming and pollution. we can do certain kinds of population control like neutering feral cats, etc, or taking care of injured wild animals

but if we mean really stopping animal deaths in the wild, e.g. if we could do something like turn carnivores into herbivores using 5G energy beams, we can't predict the consequences down the food chain, or how many animals that might inadvertently kill. fewer changes to ecosystems are generally better. if we could ever safely stop animals from eating each other in the wild it would be good, but it's more of an idea for the distant future, if ever

no action is the best action sums it up

it's consequentialist for me in both cases as a utilitarian, like I can't have one code of ethics in one situation and a different code in another

but consequentialism can still lead to ironclad rules like 'not harming animals for pleasure', esp because a statement like this is partly including the consequences. it's saying the small pleasure of taste will never outweigh animal suffering, which is true

integrating animals into society and doing a zootopia? it would be dope, but I was talking integrating them into the goals for socialism

in other words, considering their well-being a goal, instead of just the well-being of one species. and like, letting them on the subway is probably not good for their well-being or ours

the argument for 'why we should be socialists' or 'what we should believe as socialists' is a moral one, because of the word should. the argument for 'how socialism will happen' of course isn't

why would we 'not be able' to integrate animals? lacking a culture doesn't mean we're unable to do this

literally all we have to do to integrate them into our goals is to say they're part of the end goal of well-being for all, it's pretty simple

the argument for socialism is a moral argument to begin with, it's an ought claim, we believe we ought to pursue socialism because it means an end to immoral systems of oppression and suffering

yes? animals are like any person who's unable to work, but who still has needs we should provide for (one need being, don't kill them)

we also want to unite to ultimately help even those who can't or don't work

so yeah, I'm glad we're making it clear us vegans should be allowed to say eating meat is fucked up; saying this isn't sectarianism

but in the spirit of solidarity, let's not go the VCJ route of hostility. VCJ is a place to vent, not to actually talk to people or organize. and sure maybe a large part of the site is shitposting, but we can have a little praxis and community building too

we want a stateless, classless society, free from oppression, with well-being for all

and 'all' should include all conscious creatures, not just humans, simple as that

GHOST Vegan Powder has been working well for me if you can get it; peanut butter kind is good, and it's pea protein

sucks seeing leftists make the same dumb arguments any right-winger would

I wish the site would at least get to 'veganism is morally correct but I haven't made it there yet', anything else is embarrassing

utilizing that surplus is immoral because there's basically never a way to do it harmlessly

-here's some of the cruelty involved in wool (CW animal abuse): https://youtu.be/dUnTyjBuxkk

-taking in rescue pets is a good thing, but producing pets through dog farms results in a lot of animals getting culled

-both goat dairy and cow dairy require animals to be constantly impregnated (r*ped) so they can produce milk, and calves are separated from their mothers which is horrifying

-even if you just mean backyard eggs, female chickens were bred to lay many times more than they would naturally, and as a result suffer from calcium deficiencies, which result in lots of broken bones

even under socialism, we would continue to selectively breed animals in ways harmful to their health, and there would always be an incentive to treat them only well enough to get a product out of them. we have to remove the idea of getting labor/products out animals, because if we allow that, it means many people will take in animals just for those products. it's basically incentivizing mistreatment