There also a huge amount of training, medical and otherwise, that’s done through role-playing. I could definitely see medical students getting use out of learning telemedicine with LLMs that were ultimately adapted from TTRPGs character generator schemas.

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable

🎶🎵

Typically yes and again I understand the argument but what else?

Should Napoleon been given the opportunity to return from Elba? Should Hitler have had the chance to assume the Chancellorship after the Reichstag fire?

There’s a risk and balance to all action especially in geopolitics. I doubt someone like Kissinger would give a different assessment if our morals aligned.

This is one of the key deficits in modern liberal politics that will cause democracy to fall. I can totally understand the arguments for why political assassinations are regarded as more or less ‘not worth it’ but there reaches a point where a nation-state as pseudo-person in and of itself must practice self-defense up to and including arguable murder.

Napoleon being the classic example. Hitler after the Putsch another. Letters from a Birmingham Jail in a more positive light. There are figures in politics from whom flows such charisma and control that a polity, a democracy, a nation-state must choose to integrate or extirpate the figurehead of a threat.

What happens with Trump in jail? Civil war. What happens with trump as President? Civil war. What happens with trump assassinated? Still civil war but against disparate movements with no leading figure.

Fuck all you Americans for letting it get this far. Someone should’ve stomped on New Gingrich’s face back in 94. Y’all let Mitch McConnell Weimar your republic. Your liberals and neutered leftists have failed the world. Fuck you all.

Fight.

Obligatory Knowledge Fight shout out.

The Rogan-centric episodes might be a good place to start.

Can part of it be skatepark laser tag?

The mill I work at schedules their yearly maintenance around hunting season. First week both mills are down. Second week half and half.

Easy 80% of staff are gone hunting.

Mandatory minimums for those who break the public trust. Harsh ones.

I fight em’

Maybe not the best course of action and certainly not politically astute but the laws on my side so fuck the bigoted pricks.

I confronted the owner of my company a few months ago about the toxic workplace and abusive behaviors he was inculcating in his company. Pointed out that xyz by abc employees can be and have been reasonably inferred to be comments, actions and disrespect due my autism. Informed him that his own statements and behaviors are putting his company in serious legal liability. There’s this law and regulation, I have contemporaneous notes and witnesses etc etc.

Make sure that you have a claim of workplace harassment or abuse due to your autism. Then lean into it. Be prepared to involve HR and legal resources. Make sure you constantly seek feedback and confirmation that you are taking the right steps. Be vocal that perhaps you are misinterpreting this persons behavior but due to your disability you would like the accommodation that it stop and it is causing xyz distress.

A big caveat to this is that I work in a small lumber mill. No union, no hr. I direct report to the owner because his org chart is fucked. Safety is a word they use but not one they understand. Especially for mental health safety. It worked because I made it clear that it would be very expensive if they didn’t stop fucking around.

I had to play things differently when I worked for Apple as they have incredibly detailed processes for dealing with this sort of dispute and specific forms of language and approach to use. I still took the opportunity for a fight when I could find my footing. Want to write me up for feeding homeless people? Off hours and out of branded clothing? Ok, let’s do this then.

When your disability is your opponents weapon of choice they have given you the shield of the law. Embrace their mistake.

It sounds like you’ve taken the right steps to document and follow your companies procedures and you should continue doing so. Playing the game is part of the fight.

Stand firm that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ and so is abuse. Theres likely something in your handbook calling out ‘unwanted’ or ‘reasonably construed’. Find this and seek clarification. One of the aspects of autism that has been very difficult to navigate for myself is that behaviors most people find normal or caring I find awful, abrasive and can be abusive. There’s a give and take in the world but in the end they knowingly hired an autistic person and are legally obligated to adjust their behaviors to meet you in a consensual middle. Perhaps this person needs to moderate their behavior and you need to moderate your interpretations of their behavior but to do so you need clarity.

For the emotional end of things, don’t want to go in, what if they fire me, what if they hate me, I’m scared to be hurt…it’s all “what if I’m wrong again?” for me. But thats kind of just everyday right? It’s acute and direct and noticeable right now. It’s heightened in these situations. But is it new? Is it actually different or just a higher degree? Am I not nervous in my day to day or am I just more nervous now? I’m pretty sure people hate me most days so the honesty can be refreshing(sadlol).

But most importantly it doesn’t sound like you’re wrong again. Workplaces have clear rules and regulations for a reason. Find your ground. Cite your arguments. Prepare to be fired. You’ll figure it out and fight the next manager, just like the last time. You’ll keep fighting to make a space for people like us. Because that’s our existence in this world.

Neurotypicals are bound by choice paralysis in life. What do the neurodivergent do in life? We have no choice but to fight. Our course is set and conviction can be found. Freedom not of choice but of action. We fight as we see fit and as we can, from each and to each, but we fight. For a new day and a new world and a seat in Valhalla. No justice, no peace.

Thissus offeroede(that was overcome)

Thissus swæ mæg(so may this be)

If you listen on Amazon’s ad free feed only 1/3rd is plugs and ads rather than half!

Great content but I can’t take the amount of plugging and begging he does. I get it. Journalism is genuinely in trouble but he’s got to find a better balance or pitch.

That was my first real experience with Linux!

My little brother bought one open box from Best Buy. Somehow it didn’t have keyboard or trackpad drivers? Not even external usb would work.

Ended up putting Ubuntu on it for him I believe. Fun learning experience.

Fwiw my parents led the marriage prep course at our church for 15+ years. They wrote books and websites and gave talks at conferences about Christian and Catholic marriage. They met Cardinals and advised bishops. They participated in conferences with Protestant and evangelical churches.

They were married for 48 years. And they’re divorced now. My mother in particular, but my father is seeing it a bit now, realized that their model of love and marriage were predicated on co-abusive behaviors.

It took seeing what these teachings and ways of life did to their kids and their grandchildren’s homes before they gained enough perspective to see it for what it was. I hope you can see it sooner.

Man, Cheryl Gallant sends me enough crazy flyers already.

On the ‘fought a war and lost’ point that’s the crux of it. The nation state one a war against a(series of pseudo-) nation state and the loser was subjugated and their governance dissolved. Fair enough. Spoils to the victor etc.

Where this falls apart is that we are not willing, able or morally justified in destroying the cultural nation. Genocide is not acceptable whether a physical or cultural. And so what is a democracy left to do especially when trying to establish a stable nation containing multiple polities? It follows that the victor nation state must hold its various contained cultural nations in equal value and that their cultures have their own value that should not be subjugated in the same manner that their previous political system was.

So yes, this leads to tricky concepts and conversations where various cultural nations have radically different means of disseminating authority and rights. For many aboriginal groups this is an internal democratic(or a similar cultural process that entails a pseudo-democratic process) which chooses and appoints elders who have the responsibility, ability and obligations to speak on behalf of their nation and peoples.

Where this ties into the Westphalian nation state concept is that yes, our current set up of international borders and their moral justifications are based in inherently racist tropes and morals. In the face of greater freedom of movement and globalization this system is encountering various limits to its implementation as we are seeing in Australia with this referendum or in Canada with the Quebecois and First Nations.

So are you actually going to stand on ‘no racism in my politics’ and support the free movement of individuals and the eradication of the Westphalian nation state system? Or will you recognize that nothing is absolute and compromise must be made to have an inherently racist, but mostly effective and deeply entrenched geopolitical paradigm, continue to work in light of multicultural and multi-national states?

In short, you can hold you own sense of nobility and righteousness in your supposed anti-racist stance but pragmatism and the implementation of your ideals has been shown to and will continue to lead to further cultural genocides. Canada spent a century trying to make the natives white under this same ideal that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Ultimately you’re standing on a very shaky and naive soapbox.

Perhaps Canadas relationship with Quebec can serve as an analogy to help you frame this in a manner than is not based in racial divisions.

From my(Canadian) perspective Australia seems to be dealing with a number of the same issues that are important to the structure and formation of Canada and it’s constitution. Quebec holds status as a ‘nation within a nation’ and holds several concessions within our constitution to allow it to preserve the French language and unique Quebecois culture. Going back to the confederation of Canada and before 1867 we’ve always had a tension between the dominant English/Protestant culture and the French/Catholic culture and various protections for the language. Ontario and other provinces have constitutionally protected Catholic School boards which is fucking weird nowadays but make sense in the historical context. Take a look at the ‘not-withstanding’ clause and it’s history too! Bonkers.

All that said, perhaps a better lens to view this ‘Voice’ within parliament is in a similar sense to a nation to nation representative within your parliament. A recognition that there is another nation of people who hold a different value structure, sense of polity and ideas of the derivations and justifications for authority. This cultural nation within the larger Australian nation-state does not hold political or legislative power nor did the referendum propose granting any level of sovereignty to this subsumed nation(unlike Quebec), but in the interest of human rights, equality, cultural discourse and integration it would be prudent for this cultural nation to be able to provide advice and its perspective on the administration of its people.

This Nation to Nation method does have its own complexities and compromises however as Canada is seeing with its various treaty(or lack of treaty) obligations. The Crown Lands in my neck of the woods may be ceded to the local Algonquin tribe as their land was colonized but no treaty signed with their national representatives. It’s also holding up all sorts of large resource development projects.

I’m also curious, how do you feel about the Westphalian nation state? The right of a people’s self determination etc? I suspect you don’t want to tear down borders because their inherently based on racist principles as well.

Someone’s gotta send Brody a bag of gummy worms.