This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jhkim

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 551
1
I keep seeing statistics stating that right wing white supremacists (even though those two things are not at all synonymous) are responsible for more terroristic violence than leftists. And I don't buy it at all.

Why?

If all this "right wing" violence was going on, with as far left as the media has become, they would be chomping at the bit to get it on the air in front of as many people as possible as often as possible to validate their fucked up world view. The fact that the stories are not showing up on the 6 o'clock news indicates that the stories are just not there.

I don't watch television much, but it seems to me that the violence is getting widespread attention. I think the El Paso Walmart shooting last year was clearly right-wing, and it got a lot of attention. With 23 deaths, that's a big chunk of the violence just in that one incident. The synagogue shootings (Poway and Philidelphia) are also generally considered right wing. There's a lot of wiggle room, though, in what gets classified as "terrorist" as well as what is classified as "right-wing", so I think it's certainly up for debate.

This year, violence has been down so far, thankfully. One can see a breakdown of incidents in things like this report:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-comes-home-evolution-domestic-terrorism-united-states

The trick is in how they include incidents into the list, and how they classify them as left-wing, right-wing, or otherwise. That seems like a potentially quite subjective process. They're not inventing incidents wholesale, though. There genuinely are right-wing killings and plots. This year, for example, there were The Base members who planned murder in Georgia, the Bay Area boogaloo killings, and the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor.

2
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: December 01, 2020, 04:54:54 pm »
I watched the BlazeTV and the Steve Turley video, which were at least short. I didn't watch the B Tatum video which was an hour and half. The Steve Turley video at least showed testimony being given in court.  But what was being presented in court in their clip was the contents of an anonymous email!!!  Turley acted shocked and outraged over the contents of the email -- I was shocked that a fucking anonymous email was being presented as evidence in court.

Furthermore, yeah, some people can be nuts, just grinding an axe, indulging fantasies, whatever. The seriousness of the events in question though--and the integrity of our election system--warrants thorough and comprehensive investigations.

Instead, what we get is told to sit down, shut up, there's nothing to see here. There's no fraud! There's no widespread fraud! There's no substantial fraud! and on and on--but little or no investigation. It's like a knee-jerk response, all of the talking heads repeating it all like a mantra. Meanwhile a whole bunch of people are screaming bullshit. Politicians, witnesses, mathematicians, cyber expert people, professional bookies, IT people, and so on.

Here you're equating *not* finding fraud with *not* investigating -- when there is a huge difference. I think claims should be investigated, but it is a definite possibility that after investigating a given claim, the conclusion is that the claim is false. The thing is, it seems to me that there is far more investigation happening by those who are looking critically at the claims -- rather than those who are screaming fraud. For example, much has been made of the claims of cybersecurity Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, whose expert witness declaration is here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.19.pdf

That has been cited earlier in this thread, but most people haven't even read it, let alone investigated. Notably, it contains the claim "In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud."

To the people who are screaming, this is proof right there. The guy is a cyber-security expert, and he says what they want to hear. But the problem is, this claim is blatantly false. There is no such place as Edison County, MI. Look it up for yourself.

This is a very simple check - and yet those crying out fraud haven't even bothered to do this simple check. I'm seeing a lot of such checks on the claims from fact-checkers and reporters - but never from the people who are screaming fraud. For example, in the BlazeTV video, they even made a point of going to Snopes to check out the claim of the Frankfurt raid. They dismissed the Snopes finding, but they didn't do any sort of investigation of their own. Instead, they just swapped opinions between themselves about how outraged they were, and how could this be happening.


Again, all's I hear from the MSM and Democrat talking heads and morons like Politifact--is the Reeing that it never happened, nothing to see here. Like Politifact can be trusted? *laughing* Like the MSM such as CNN and MSNBC can be trusted? No, they have never lied, distorted, or ignored the facts. They have never bent over to get plough fucked by their Democrat candidate or favourite ever, showering them with praise and glory and cock-sucking, while hiding or ignoring uncomfortable truths?

So, no, I don't feel such sources are trustworthy at all, in the slightest. I would trust my coffee girl at the restaurant more. She might not always be right or accurate--but she is not intentionally seeking to lie to me. The MSM outlets lie on a constant basis.

It sounds like you're prioritizing *intent* over *truth* here. i.e. It doesn't matter if what I hear is the truth, as long as it isn't an *intentional* lie. But even if they aren't intentionally lying, listening to people's Twitter feeds and Youtube videos are passing on the lies of other downstream sources. Worse, they're passing on the most outrageous lies, because outrage gets the most "likes".

I feel that believing the local gossip and the social media of friends is promoting ever greater falsehoods. For my local restaurants and my social media feeds, it's usually liberal-leaning falsehoods. I have to call people out on fact-checks regularly.

I also have concerns about the mainstream media, and I try to balance by also reading conservative sources like Fox News and Breitbart. What I care about is the truth, not intent.

3
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: December 01, 2020, 02:20:59 am »
WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO AND LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSION!

Geesus some of you are fucking full of sand. I posted the video as examples of more people talking about this, for discussion here. I already said I don't know much about the events in Germany, though I am interested to hear more--and I keep an open mind.

I watched the BlazeTV and the Steve Turley video, which were at least short. I didn't watch the B Tatum video which was an hour and half. The Steve Turley video at least showed testimony being given in court.  But what was being presented in court in their clip was the contents of an anonymous email!!!  Turley acted shocked and outraged over the contents of the email -- I was shocked that a fucking anonymous email was being presented as evidence in court.

From about 6:00 in the video, "This was an anonymous email that was sent to all the members of the Arizona legislature and it was also sent to DOJ. This individual sent the email wanted to remain anonymous but had enough concern that he sent this to the criminal division at the U.S. Department of Justice. He did not want to be included in the investigation." He goes on to detail the horrible things exposed by the email, leaving aside that... it's a fucking anonymous email. Also, interestingly, it goes against the Dominion machine theory by claiming now that *any* election machine can have the same.

The BlazeTV segment was just people talking second-hand about what McInerny said -- when he's fucking 83 and long retired. He's not an inside information source to army operations. What's amazing was how all the players were emphasizing how the claims were completely unbelievable -- but then they keep going on because they have absolute faith in McInerny.


Like you, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but there has to be a filter at some point for what one is trying to keep an open mind about. Seriously, I realize that your emotions are running high - but there needs to be a filter at some point. Anonymous emails are not, in fact, shocking proof as Turley is claiming. McInerny at least is a named source, but as far as I can tell, he's not talking about anything he has first-hand knowledge of. He's just someone who has decided to believe the rumors.

But what if there are, like, *hundreds* of Twitter posts and anonymous emails. Surely that shows there is something there to be concerned about? Maybe. But also maybe not. The only thing it definitely shows is that people really *want* to believe.

4
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: November 30, 2020, 11:56:26 pm »
Quote
Huh? My whole point was about how we have a great history of free speech here in the U.S. -- how we have never been limited by only select sources. I was contrasting with your claim that seemed to be elevating social media as a contrast to what came before.

I would say that none of social media, government media, or legacy media is inherently "information we can trust".

It seemed to me that you were talking up social media as a positive force that contrasted with autocratic societies. I have a negative view of social media -- and I felt that the BSM (Before Social Media) age had better alternatives.

This is why some people don't get the Babylon Bee

Dude. Sorry if that was just a joke. With all the extreme claims being posted here, I have a hard time distinguishing what are actual claims versus hyperbole versus sarcasm. Nothing personal at you.

5
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: November 30, 2020, 11:34:15 pm »
Government and legacy media only reports truth, and reports all the truth.

The purpose of social media was for us to discuss amongst ourselves what was first reported by the government and legacy media; information we can trust.

This is what separates us from autocratic societies

I'm not understanding this. According to this, before the rise of social media, the U.S. was an autocratic society.

Your believe that BSM (Before Social Media) was an era of only legacy media and government information being consumed and discussed is unsurprising.

Huh? My whole point was about how we have a great history of free speech here in the U.S. -- how we have never been limited by only select sources. I was contrasting with your claim that seemed to be elevating social media as a contrast to what came before.

I would say that none of social media, government media, or legacy media is inherently "information we can trust".

It seemed to me that you were talking up social media as a positive force that contrasted with autocratic societies. I have a negative view of social media -- and I felt that the BSM (Before Social Media) age had better alternatives.

6
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: November 30, 2020, 07:43:10 pm »
Government and legacy media only reports truth, and reports all the truth.

The purpose of social media was for us to discuss amongst ourselves what was first reported by the government and legacy media; information we can trust.

This is what separates us from autocratic societies

I'm not understanding this. According to this, before the rise of social media, the U.S. was an autocratic society. Seriously? And only because of the rise of social media, we have become free? That seems nonsensical to me.

This country has a fine tradition of free speech - stronger than that in almost any other country in the world. It is a travesty to suggest that Facebook and Twitter have somehow saved all of us from autocracy. People can and did publish their own direct accounts of the truth long before social media. Anyone can print and distribute their version of the truth.

What social media has done isn't *allowed* communication. It's just made communication stupider, by putting it into ever-faster streams of "likes" and short-attention-span snippets that pushes people's emotional buttons with every-refining accuracy.

7
My sister is a Finance PhD who works at the SEC. My second-hand impression is that they need a ton of lawyers because they are extremely limited in what sort of operations they can engage in. It sounds very frustrating to work there, and I am not impressed by what they have done - but it seems like they are hamstrung by what they are allowed to pursue and prosecute, not because they don't have the skills.
Regulatory capture-type limitations? Because that's another issue with white collar crime -- the perpetrators tend to be very well connected, or are in positions of power.

I don't know exactly. She's not allowed to talk in any detail about her work, so everything is more in impressions and reading some public articles.

Basically, my impression is that yes, the SEC doesn't actually go against those really in power. I can't speak to the internals about exactly why that is so, but it leaves me thinking that there need to be serious changes to give it real teeth. I just don't know who would do so.

For all his talk attacking Big Tech firms like Amazon and Facebook, it seems to me that Trump has done nothing to actually rein in Big Tech and other large corporations. The EU regulations on privacy seem to be the biggest concerns of theirs, but mostly they just look to keep growing more powerful. On the other hand, Democrats also have done little to constrain big corporations. The closest to a confrontation was Prop 22 in California that took on Uber and Lyft, but there the corporations won.

8
I agree without reservation as far as politicians and net worth. While I'm all for 'be the best capitalist you can be', if you're in a position of political power, you weren't sent there to get rich.

Although I disagree about white collar crime being hard to prove. The problem is that the people who usually do the enforcement (in Madoff's case, the SEC) are not actually trained to look for the red flags. It took a forensic accountant about twenty minutes to figure out it was bullshit, and a few more hours to figure out how the scam was being run. Unfortunately, the SEC seems to be dominated by lawyers, not accountants.

My sister is a Finance PhD who works at the SEC. My second-hand impression is that they need a ton of lawyers because they are extremely limited in what sort of operations they can engage in. It sounds very frustrating to work there, and I am not impressed by what they have done - but it seems like they are hamstrung by what they are allowed to pursue and prosecute, not because they don't have the skills.

9
The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin, and inspired me to write this post - a dark fantasy location for D&D-ish game
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-dead-in-woods.html

The problem is nothing much happens in the video game, except a lot of exposition, and there's no real character development. The part about the Cultural Revolution in China was much better.

The title of your blog post reminded me of the key concept of the second volume (which is also the title: The Dark Forest), but aside from the similar names, they appear entirely different.

I enjoyed The Three-Body Problem a lot. I'm currently reading The Dark Forest, but I'm struggling to keep up interest - though I'm still just in the early parts of it. In general, while the first book is a great novel, I don't think it makes for a good RPG setting. Too much of it is in big reveal, flashback, and commentary.

For fun, right now I'm greatly enjoying the Murderbot series by Martha Wells. It's a fascinating take on a non-human central character. In RPG terms, it is interesting as a mix of cyberpunk and space opera. There are mega-corporations controlling various colonies - but they're across an interstellar network of wormholes, and there are alien remnants though no intelligent aliens. For action, there's a lot of hacking/netrunning and clouds of drones, as well as traditional shooting.

10
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: November 30, 2020, 01:59:40 pm »
(jeff37923 posts a cartoon claiming "Pennsylvania sent out 1.7 million mail-in ballots, 2.5 million were mailed back in. Explain that")

Longer explanation: Over 3 million ballots were requested. Unsurprisingly, the false numbers claimed have not been presented to any court; rather, lawyers have repeatedly told judges that they are not alleging fraud. Now, why would lawyers who could be sanctioned and even disbarred for misrepresenting facts to a court not share false numbers that can be so easily debunked? It's a mystery that jeff37923 simply will not or cannot solve.

10/13: https://www.post-gazette.com/local/2020/10/13/Pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-requests-2-6-million-registered-voters-PA-2020/stories/202010130153

10/19: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/politics/decision-2020/pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-requests-hit-2-8-million-including-700000-gop-voters/2567670/

A recent fact check; although the numbers falsely claimed vary a little from moron37923's, the facts remain the same: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/28/fact-check-pennsylvania-ballot-claim-mixes-primary-general-election-data/6450032002/

I realize that conservatives have a problem with liberal bias in fact checks - but the fact checks generally explain their logic and show their sources, compared to jeff37923's claim which is just a cartoon. I see a lot of claims of over 2.5 million requested ballots. Adding to your earlier October articles above, here's the governor's office just prior to the election:

From the PA governor's office on 10/27:
Quote
“If you haven’t already, voters with mail ballots should immediately hand-deliver your ballot to your county-designated location,” said Gov. Wolf. “Don’t wait until election day. Hand-delivering your own ballot now will give you the peace of mind that your vote will be counted, and your voice will be heard in this historic election.”

More than 3 million Pennsylvanians have applied to vote by mail
Source: https://www.governor.pa.gov/newsroom/pennsylvanians-urged-to-hand-deliver-mail-ballots-immediately/


11
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: November 29, 2020, 03:16:20 pm »
Sadly, I don't think there's enough momentum to kick over the traces and demand new elections, even though the statistics and circumstantial evidence are so appalling there are probably third world countries snickering at us. We will probably get lucky with Georgia's senate runoffs which will stymie Biden, especially since the Dems managed to lose a shitload of House seats. Pelosi's hanging on by her fingernails there.

If the retard patrol in the House, aka 'The Squad' manages to irritate enough people, the midterms will hit Sleepy Joe and Kamala-Ho in the face like a brick.

I still haven't seen any sourced breakdown of statistics. Spinachcat referenced Matt Braynard's video in #1288, which was interesting - though he does not claim that Trump won the election. He apparently has a white paper coming out this week.

As for what will happen, I tend to agree with you that the courts will not back Trump, and Biden will become president -- but also that the midterm elections in 2022 will see gains by Republicans. In general, the midterm elections always go poorly for the party controlling the presidency - and in this case, that will likely mean that the Republicans will retake the House.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-2020-gains-in-the-house-set-them-up-well-for-2022/

12
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« on: November 29, 2020, 03:07:01 pm »
Following up on an earlier comment to me:

But this is one of my beefs with you jhkim.  It is not your place to say "Please don't be like the radicals of the beliefs I lean towards".  It is absolutely sane, normal, and natural to put reason aside when threated by something having no reason.  That's where we're at now.  "Yeah but you guys are punching back and punching is bad" doesn't have the corollary attached that when someone is punching you, punching them back is OK. 

Tell you what - if conservatives are still "immoderate" after the left has disarmed their rhetoric of our having to materially atone for sins of the father, let's have a conference about how to dial it back.  Until then, what is most necessary is to counteract the rhetorical gaslighting - which is done...with counter-rhetoric.
If I have an insane person ranting at me in my face, I do think it's natural to get mad and scream back at them -- also acting irrational. However, I also don't think that it's productive. When professionals have to deal with insane people -- like psychiatrists and orderlies -- they do so by being calm and rational. When force is necessary, it's applied in measured amounts.

Even if it's a violent confrontation, I think rationality and order is useful. A crazed mob is dangerous, but they are no match for an organized military force. If I was in a group faced with an insanely violent mob, I'd urge everyone to keep calm and use their heads. By tactically applying our force, we can systematically take the mob apart. Going crazy and attacking them irrationally is just going to get more of us killed.
The rhetoric battle, not kinetic ones.

In rhetorical battles, emotional appeals are important - but using emotional appeals isn't the same thing as being insane. There are sane and truthful emotional appeals.

The analogy to physical battles is just an analogy - but it's one that I feel is useful. I think insane crowds tearing into each other is worse for *both* sides compared to organized conflict. We can disagree on things and discuss those disagreements without tossing out reason and sanity.

You're concerned about the rhetoric of our having to materially atone for sins of the father. I would say that shame and pride in one's ancestors goes hand in hand -- and they have always been clashing rhetoric. Conservatives tend to take pride in the virtues of their ancestors and have a positive view of their past. (Though what is seen as conservative changes from age to age.) Liberals tend to criticize the past and push to right the wrongs that have been done by their ancestors. I don't think that conservatives will ever be willing to put aside pride in their ancestors. In turn, liberals aren't willing to put aside their rhetoric of wrongs. But we can still have some balance and discussion, knowing that there are both virtues and sins in our ancestors.

13
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: 2020 Election Commentary
« on: November 28, 2020, 07:10:46 pm »
I am defining what could cause a judge to invalidate an election as the same thing that have caused judges to invalidate elections previously - no smoking gun needed, just a lot of circumstantial evidence reasonably pointing towards an unclean election.

There's already election-not-clean redundancy in the constitution.

Do you know of any other elections that were invalidated in court by just circumstantial evidence? The only election overturned in recent decades I know of is the 1998 Miami mayoral election, and that had tons of direct evidence -- I read that there were 60 witnesses who attested to tampering. And that's for an extremely close mayoral contest, where the initial election had a difference of just 155 votes. For a national election by tens or hundreds of thousands of votes, I think the bar is higher.

I agree that the courts should decide about allegations of fraud. I don't know the legal precedent in detail, but I think would that proof is needed.


Outside of that, I think that proof ought to be available. In most cases in other countries of rigged elections, they're rigged by the ruling party, usually by changing the election process. In these cases, the fraud can be deeply embedded -- but even so, regularly other countries can identify whether the elections were rigged or not. Trying to overturn the ruling party is more likely to turn out like Miami 1997.

14
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.
« on: November 26, 2020, 02:24:51 pm »
But this is one of my beefs with you jhkim.  It is not your place to say "Please don't be like the radicals of the beliefs I lean towards".  It is absolutely sane, normal, and natural to put reason aside when threated by something having no reason.  That's where we're at now.  "Yeah but you guys are punching back and punching is bad" doesn't have the corollary attached that when someone is punching you, punching them back is OK. 

Tell you what - if conservatives are still "immoderate" after the left has disarmed their rhetoric of our having to materially atone for sins of the father, let's have a conference about how to dial it back.  Until then, what is most necessary is to counteract the rhetorical gaslighting - which is done...with counter-rhetoric.

If I have an insane person ranting at me in my face, I do think it's natural to get mad and scream back at them -- also acting irrational. However, I also don't think that it's productive. When professionals have to deal with insane people -- like psychiatrists and orderlies -- they do so by being calm and rational. When force is necessary, it's applied in measured amounts.

Even if it's a violent confrontation, I think rationality and order is useful. A crazed mob is dangerous, but they are no match for an organized military force. If I was in a group faced with an insanely violent mob, I'd urge everyone to keep calm and use their heads. By tactically applying our force, we can systematically take the mob apart. Going crazy and attacking them irrationally is just going to get more of us killed.

15
FYI:
Mathematically-based statistical evidence is court-admissible DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

Eyewitness testimony is court-admissible TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.

And Trumps team has tons of both. With the accompanying signed affidavits putting their claims under penalty of perjury.

Evidence of election fraud will be proven in the United States Supreme Court.

I agree that Trump should get his day in court - but I am doubtful that the courts will back this up. Also, I asked this in the other thread. Can you provide a link to a text article with sources and methodology for the statistical evidence you are talking about?


Someone elsewhere pointed this out:

The presence of any kind of software algorithm in a voting machine alone should be cause for a recount. That's like finding out your spreadsheet's been adding things wrong over the last two hours. You don't just shrug it off -- you have to go back, fix the spreadsheet, and recheck all your answers.

Well, we have had a full recount in Georgia and a partial recount in Wisconsin. There is also a recount in Michigan for Antrim county, which had the most prominent error - though that was attributed to human error from the clerk using the software, not a flaw in the software. If you enter some data in the wrong column in your spreadsheet, that's going to throw off the totals, as a parallel. Links on the Antrim County error and recount:

https://www.wxyz.com/news/antrim-county-in-michigan-to-manually-recount-ballots-after-election-software-error

https://www.woodtv.com/news/elections/antrim-co-vote-count-problem-was-ballot-change-not-software/

Generally speaking, I agree that election handling is sloppy and it could use more reform. The Antrim County error has been investigated, and clerks have alerted to check for whether they have done a similar error.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 551