It’ll auto-close at 10,000. At which point, I’ll request the Utari’s Puppies thread be re-opened and rename it to Off-Topic Thread Classic.
But it isn’t locked. It’s one of the old ones that has no lock on it.
Some foreign students at the university have made a complaint about how I don’t accept sexual favours in return for inflated grades. Apparently this creates a “hostile teaching environment” and offends their “cultural heritage”. Made me question what other Sabik worlds universities are like if that sort of thing is considered normal.
Well-- it’s a “by any means” sort of culture after all, so, I guess…?
Still this is very weird; the practice must be very widespread for them to think it’s something they’re entitled to instead of an individual weakness they can exploit in certain professors.
The Time of Judging is upon us !
In other words, a soft power approach to Reclaiming that you are disguising under the veneer of charitable outreach.
Who did you approach in the Federation when you conceived this initiative of yours? Did you approach capsuleer representatives of the Federation to talk about the sensitivities that you may need to consider when interfering directly in the member states? Did you approach the District Parliaments or the Member State governments, any local organisations or considering the attitude of the population itself to gauge their willingness to accept aid from Imperial-aligned organisations?
I think that any of the above was performed. And until such time as you do, these efforts will be determined to be nothing more than a sinister plot to undermine the Federation’s integrity at the level of it’s basic building blocks. Captain Dallocort is therefore absolutely correct in identifying the Empire as ‘foreign’ to the Federation, which it is, and despite the Treaty of Pachanai giving an impression of friendliness, the Empire remains ideologically it’s adversary.
Mantel - would you be able to be approached for such services? I have an Idea.
This… might not be something you can trust. Not from SAYR, mind you, I’m sure their reporting is accurate. But keep in mind that the reason the attacks on the TTC structures ended isn’t because Goons are done. They made their TTC Sotiyo in Ashab their war HQ, and it got blown up. If Asher’s still dead-set on harvesting as many Highsec XL structure kills as possible, he’ll drop a faction fort in Keba, max-plate it, and giggle maniacally as hostiles attempt to attack it while he can Titan bridge from Sakht or D4KU-5 to just next door (or, more likely, he and Shines can bridge from both directions to put fighter blobs on all 3 gates into that highsec pocket).
The war forcibly ended on 6/27. That means Goonswarm can’t declare war again until 7/11. If Asher’s still looking to collect those kills, expect it to happen then, and those Sotiyos to get hit on 7/12…
… if Shines lets them live that long. INIT, Dracarys, and LAWN, as well as BL0B (who have their own reasons for hating the TTC) are still at war with the TTC. I don’t know if FRT is willing to come defend, now that the Ashab Sotiyo (a significant point of tension for Noraus) is dead.
Now, maybe the TTC has bought itself enough of a window for Asher and Shines to get distracted. Maybe Asher won’t want to put up with another highsec slog. Whether or not those Sotiyos survive will depend entirely on whether or not he’s committed to destroying them.
Either way, the TTC remains nullsec’s hand in highsec’s wallet.
You, sir, are a very generous soul to believe that this is a kind thing to say.
Possibly to any of us.
She’s not wrong, though. As awesome as I look, I am actually smarter still.
Generosity is a limitless positive entropy field.
There is balance in everything.
Even in the weaving of words.
I … am … not sure what you mean by that, sir.
Either way I’m getting pretty strongly that “balance” is a matter of faith for you. There are definitely worse things to structure a worldview around.
What I mean is this.
Generosity can take any number of forms, dependent upon and dictated by the circumstances in which the opportunity for generosity presents itself.
the -balance- of that in simplest form… would be something like Selfishness or Greed (two words for a similarly entangled concept.
For every opportunity someone has to be Generous (within their realistic means), at the exact same time they have an opportunity for Greed. The exact specifics of the scenario irrelevant to the fact that a person has two equal but opposite actions that can be taken.
I use the term “entropy field” in this sense, and specifically state it’s limitlessness intentionally.
Just as an infinite number of opportunities to be generous will present themselves over the course of one’s life. So too will there be an infinite number of opportunities to be greedy.
Take a basic example of you choosing whether or not to give a beggar a coin. (I say you purely hypothetically)
The Positive entropy field that would result from a generous action, only begins with the coin, but does not end. With that coin, this beggar is able to survive another day in the indifferent innocence of the universe. Perhaps he is able to feed himself and his family of four for a week or more. Perhaps one day, because of that single act of generosity, not only does he feed his family, but his make sure that his family is thankful to the mysterious stranger that facilitated their food. Perhaps the beggar not long after, makes something of himself, and pulls his family out of poverty forever. One day the past beggar comes across a present beggar and is given the exact same choice to make. He makes the same choice that someone else once made for him, his family sees this, and the children grow up from the same humble beginnings, with an appreciation for generosity.
Thus the cycle repeats, and the limitless positive entropy field continues.
The Negative entropy field resulting from a greedy action, also only begins with the coin. Knowing full well your wealth is such that a simple coin is easily afforded, yet you still reject the beggar. Perhaps even ridicule them for being homeless. Spit on them, any manner of vile treatment. That beggar -probably- already feels worthless for being there begging in the first place, and just received a psychological assault that further degrades their self-worth. Perhaps they even become permanently bitter, and start becoming more aggressive and selfishly begin mugging people in dark alleys. Eventually this leads to teaching his own family and children much the same way, as it quickly becomes the only one he knows.
Also thus the cycle repeats, and the limitless negative entropy field continues it’s endless fight against the positive.
In such example, a single opportunity to choose one or the other has fundamentally altered the flow in whatever direction is chosen.
Even a star is nothing more than a delicate balance between exploding and imploding forces.
Sounds like a load of nonsense. That somehow the indifferent universe is affected by us.
Take your star for example. If one were to do generous things then the positive forces of the universe would cause the star to explode. But If one would happen to do negative things, then the star would implode.
If the universe was truly indifferent to the positive and negative forces of entropy, they it would have to remain indifferent and no amount of acting positive or negative would ever change it.
I call, cult. Maybe not as awful and evil as Naups, but just as ridiculous.
Everything is varying degrees of cult Ax’l and every bit at ridiculous.
The truth is humanity is blind, describing a fragment of the beast they have managed to grasp. In describing what we hold on to to each other a discordance of most profound humour occurs.
I don’t think he means a star is in balance between the ‘positive entropy field’ and ‘negative entropy field’ he’s talking about here, or even that those fields are at work on the inert matter of the universe.
Rather, I think he’s just using positive and negative ‘entropy fields’ to describe feedback loops: a generous act alleviates misery, putting the recipient in a frame of mind more likely to be generous and kind, himself. An act of cruelty or callousness engenders a negative emotional state, so the victim is more likely to take that out on others in their path, and so perpetuate the harm.
It’s pretty standard sociology stuff. Positive and negative behavioral reinforcement’s been a thing… forever. It’s baked right into axioms from most cultures. Carrots and sticks. Catching more flies with honey. What goes around, comes around, Etc etc. The idea that if you do good things for people, those people are more likely to do good for others, and so, however circuitously, good things will come around to happen to you. And it works in the other direction, too.
His use of the star there is a metaphor.
I agree, mostly, Arrendis, but I also think he’s getting a bit mystical about it. It’s a dualistic outlook, and he’s been a little more overtly magic-y about the “balance” elsewhere.
(I’d describe the opportunities to be generous over the course of even a capsuleer’s lifespan as “large but finite.”)
So, basically be nice, and your niceness might make another persons day a bit better.
That makes more sense.
Why all the mystical mumbo-jumbo tho?
Obviously, which is why his metaphor wasn’t taken as such.
Because some people believe that morality can only be understood from a ‘spiritual’ framework, maybe? I dunno. It’s like the people who insist atheists can’t have morality because we don’t feel like there’s some supernatural parental figure threatening to punish us if we aren’t good.
Morality’s simple: Do what you’d want others to do. Because you’d want them to do that, too.