Black Myth: Wukong shows very clearly Valve are selling a lot of Steam Decks

So then, how about Fortnite on Linux / Steam Deck? Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said when it hits "tens of millions of users" that it "would actually make sense to support it". We must be pretty close by now right? Why ignore a platform that's sold multiple millions, and is clearly just continuing to fly off the shelves?

I've seen more consistency in /dev/random's output than Tim Sweeney's statements.

It also has further downstream knockon social effects that dont end up benefitting you.

Which ones?

The current ones that seem to be popping up is where certain people can't get promotions or hired because of their ethnicity isn't 'diverse' enough. There are lawsuits, for example, against IBM for not promoting someone who has been at the company for decades, but was told more or less that he would not be promoted because he wasn't diverse enough... then you have Gina Carano suing Disney for wrongful termination, etc. If you go looking through various codes of conduct (Gnome for example) and they're clearly racist against people who are white.

'Woke' is basically an ideology that says the minorities should be the majority and that the majority should bend the knee for being awful.

When you can show me a place where white males make less money on average than minorities, or have less wealth on average than minorities, I'll start to care. If you look at the stats, you will notice that there are NO signs of this coming close to happening. And despite all the anecdotal whining, they've done experiments in the US: They do sets of loan applications and job applications in pairs that are identical except one has a typically "white-sounding" name attached to it and the other has a typically "black-sounding" name attached to it. The ones assumed to be white get hired more often, get the loans more often, and if both get the loans the "black-sounding" name on average gets charged a higher interest rate. So for now all the bitching and moaning from white males about how terribly they're treated because of wokeness and reverse discrimination is going to get from me a sad song on the world's smallest violin.

God, I just get so ashamed of what fucking wimps many of my fellow white males are.

Ah, so what you're saying is the cure for racism is more racism? I believe that the answer to it is fairness across the board. There's a culture issue going on, it has less to do about what color your skin is and what culture you're from. There are a lot of individuals who escape that culture, and others do not.

If people are getting screwed over based on what color their skin is, than it is wrong, period. That's the whole purpose of discrimination laws.

Discrimination laws might get the job done in much of Europe, where the class system is relatively compressed, social programs exist and pretty much work, education is cheap or free and fairly equally delivered, unions are widespread and sectoral bargaining means most people not in a union still pretty much have a union contract. And where, far as I can make out, people take such laws fairly seriously. I have doubts, but sure, maybe.

In the US, such laws do little.
(hidden is explanation of why)

Spoiler, click me

Hierarchy is much steeper there and natural opportunities for class mobility much more constrained. So for instance, in the US, most people can be fired from their job for no reason. So it's illegal to fire someone because they are from some race or religion, or because they're trying to start a union, but it's not illegal to just fire them without saying why. Similarly, as long as you don't say why you didn't hire someone, or didn't give them a loan, or whatever . . . and indeed lots of people charging a black family higher interest for a loan or not hiring a black for a management job aren't being consciously racist; they're just white people who have a "sense" for who's higher risk or who's not a "fit", which sense somewhere at the back of their mind involves blackness as a risk factor. And of course, nearly all the people making these decisions are white. They're not going to notice this stuff--it has no impact on anyone they know. Incidentally, when there's talk about AI doing racist stuff, it's because they fed the AIs on data from this kind of decision maker and it took in the tacit bias from the data it got fed.

Or if you look at education--in the United States, primary and high school education are locally funded by property taxes, and property values vary wildly, so poor neighborhoods have very crappy schools. But wait, there's more! Federal funding tends to go preferentially to schools which are already performing well (not by accident, by design; it's supposed to be an incentive to compete), which is to say not the poor ones. And of course for the rich there are lots of private schools. And just having gone to schools known to be bad makes you less hireable. Since neighborhoods are also very segregated, and blacks are much poorer than whites on average, functionally "black schools" suck and make people less able to get hired.

There's a whole constellation of this kind of stuff all kind of working together.

To make antiracism laws perform effectively, you'd have to do massive witch hunts. You think people bitch about affirmative action, discrimination laws strong enough and strongly enforced enough to work in the US would be just insane police state shit. It's probably less intrusive just to have a quota. And the idea is that once the numbers are about in tune with population sizes, it also won't be just whites (or males) making the hiring decisions and so forth . . . there will be people in the decision-making part of the system to whom the whole setup isn't invisible. I would agree that there are drawbacks, but if you're going to have a steeply hierarchical and unequal system in the first place, nothing is going to work really well when it comes to trying to make people equal.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 1 September 2024 at 6:11 pm UTC

So then, how about Fortnite on Linux / Steam Deck? Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said when it hits "tens of millions of users" that it "would actually make sense to support it". We must be pretty close by now right? Why ignore a platform that's sold multiple millions, and is clearly just continuing to fly off the shelves?

I've seen more consistency in /dev/random's output than Tim Sweeney's statements.

It also has further downstream knockon social effects that dont end up benefitting you.

Which ones?

The current ones that seem to be popping up is where certain people can't get promotions or hired because of their ethnicity isn't 'diverse' enough. There are lawsuits, for example, against IBM for not promoting someone who has been at the company for decades, but was told more or less that he would not be promoted because he wasn't diverse enough... then you have Gina Carano suing Disney for wrongful termination, etc. If you go looking through various codes of conduct (Gnome for example) and they're clearly racist against people who are white.

'Woke' is basically an ideology that says the minorities should be the majority and that the majority should bend the knee for being awful.

When you can show me a place where white males make less money on average than minorities, or have less wealth on average than minorities, I'll start to care. If you look at the stats, you will notice that there are NO signs of this coming close to happening. And despite all the anecdotal whining, they've done experiments in the US: They do sets of loan applications and job applications in pairs that are identical except one has a typically "white-sounding" name attached to it and the other has a typically "black-sounding" name attached to it. The ones assumed to be white get hired more often, get the loans more often, and if both get the loans the "black-sounding" name on average gets charged a higher interest rate. So for now all the bitching and moaning from white males about how terribly they're treated because of wokeness and reverse discrimination is going to get from me a sad song on the world's smallest violin.

God, I just get so ashamed of what fucking wimps many of my fellow white males are.

Ah, so what you're saying is the cure for racism is more racism? I believe that the answer to it is fairness across the board. There's a culture issue going on, it has less to do about what color your skin is and what culture you're from. There are a lot of individuals who escape that culture, and others do not.

If people are getting screwed over based on what color their skin is, than it is wrong, period. That's the whole purpose of discrimination laws.

Discrimination laws might get the job done in much of Europe, where the class system is relatively compressed, social programs exist and pretty much work, education is cheap or free and fairly equally delivered, unions are widespread and sectoral bargaining means most people not in a union still pretty much have a union contract. And where, far as I can make out, people take such laws fairly seriously. I have doubts, but sure, maybe.

In the US, such laws do little.
(hidden is explanation of why)

Spoiler, click me

Hierarchy is much steeper there and natural opportunities for class mobility much more constrained. So for instance, in the US, most people can be fired from their job for no reason. So it's illegal to fire someone because they are from some race or religion, or because they're trying to start a union, but it's not illegal to just fire them without saying why. Similarly, as long as you don't say why you didn't hire someone, or didn't give them a loan, or whatever . . . and indeed lots of people charging a black family higher interest for a loan or not hiring a black for a management job aren't being consciously racist; they're just white people who have a "sense" for who's higher risk or who's not a "fit", which sense somewhere at the back of their mind involves blackness as a risk factor. And of course, nearly all the people making these decisions are white. They're not going to notice this stuff--it has no impact on anyone they know. Incidentally, when there's talk about AI doing racist stuff, it's because they fed the AIs on data from this kind of decision maker and it took in the tacit bias from the data it got fed.

Or if you look at education--in the United States, primary and high school education are locally funded by property taxes, and property values vary wildly, so poor neighborhoods have very crappy schools. But wait, there's more! Federal funding tends to go preferentially to schools which are already performing well (not by accident, by design; it's supposed to be an incentive to compete), which is to say not the poor ones. And of course for the rich there are lots of private schools. And just having gone to schools known to be bad makes you less hireable. Since neighborhoods are also very segregated, and blacks are much poorer than whites on average, functionally "black schools" suck and make people less able to get hired.

There's a whole constellation of this kind of stuff all kind of working together.

To make antiracism laws perform effectively, you'd have to do massive witch hunts. You think people bitch about affirmative action, discrimination laws strong enough and strongly enforced enough to work in the US would be just insane police state shit. It's probably less intrusive just to have a quota. And the idea is that once the numbers are about in tune with population sizes, it also won't be just whites (or males) making the hiring decisions and so forth . . . there will be people in the decision-making part of the system to whom the whole setup isn't invisible. I would agree that there are drawbacks, but if you're going to have a steeply hierarchical and unequal system in the first place, nothing is going to work really well when it comes to trying to make people equal.

Most of this I agree with. But people always forget to mention the vast swaths of poor white people too. You know, the ones who are referred to as white trash, have 8 kids out of wedlock from different fathers. It is a cultural thing. Yes, the lack of decent education in poor areas is definitely an issue, but there are those who simply were taught from generations of 'skul ain't dun nuttin' fur me.' types. I grew up somewhat poor, inherited clothes from my older brother, father and brother are mentally ill. I still managed to turn my interest in computers into a well paid career. The USA is one of the few places where that is perfectly possible.

I have seen some videos of a black guy where he explains that playing Dungeons & Dragons was said to be 'something white people play, and no self-respecting black person would do that." But he also went on to say that they are also not encouraged to do well in school, etc. It definitely is a cultural thing. Ha, basically what I am saying is there are idiots and smart people of all shapes and colors, and we should probably give hugs and handshakes more and stop concentrating so much on how people look.

At this point, I try to just treat people like they are brains in jars.

I grew up somewhat poor, inherited clothes from my older brother, father and brother are mentally ill. I still managed to turn my interest in computers into a well paid career. The USA is one of the few places where that is perfectly possible.

Would you believe this is actually even more likely in countries where education is free or at least very affordable? Saying this as a fellow professional nerd who grew up relatively poor.

Statistics on complex issues like this are tricky, but you might consider the social mobility index to be relevant.

I grew up somewhat poor, inherited clothes from my older brother, father and brother are mentally ill. I still managed to turn my interest in computers into a well paid career. The USA is one of the few places where that is perfectly possible.

Would you believe this is actually even more likely in countries where education is free or at least very affordable? Saying this as a fellow professional nerd who grew up relatively poor.

Statistics on complex issues like this are tricky, but you might consider the social mobility index to be relevant.

The bonus for me is I'm basically self-educated. Ha, learning how to compile XFree86, because back in those days not all Linux distros shipped with an X11 server, and having a history of working with other operating systems of varying levels of difficulty before getting into Linux because Windows95 looked crappy... that's pretty much where my education is. Ha, from what I've seen of some younger people with computer science degrees, I wonder if they just learn how to flip the switch on... they barely know anything about computers, it seems.

So then, how about Fortnite on Linux / Steam Deck? Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said when it hits "tens of millions of users" that it "would actually make sense to support it". We must be pretty close by now right? Why ignore a platform that's sold multiple millions, and is clearly just continuing to fly off the shelves?

I've seen more consistency in /dev/random's output than Tim Sweeney's statements.

It also has further downstream knockon social effects that dont end up benefitting you.

Which ones?

The current ones that seem to be popping up is where certain people can't get promotions or hired because of their ethnicity isn't 'diverse' enough. There are lawsuits, for example, against IBM for not promoting someone who has been at the company for decades, but was told more or less that he would not be promoted because he wasn't diverse enough... then you have Gina Carano suing Disney for wrongful termination, etc. If you go looking through various codes of conduct (Gnome for example) and they're clearly racist against people who are white.

'Woke' is basically an ideology that says the minorities should be the majority and that the majority should bend the knee for being awful.

When you can show me a place where white males make less money on average than minorities, or have less wealth on average than minorities, I'll start to care. If you look at the stats, you will notice that there are NO signs of this coming close to happening. And despite all the anecdotal whining, they've done experiments in the US: They do sets of loan applications and job applications in pairs that are identical except one has a typically "white-sounding" name attached to it and the other has a typically "black-sounding" name attached to it. The ones assumed to be white get hired more often, get the loans more often, and if both get the loans the "black-sounding" name on average gets charged a higher interest rate. So for now all the bitching and moaning from white males about how terribly they're treated because of wokeness and reverse discrimination is going to get from me a sad song on the world's smallest violin.

God, I just get so ashamed of what fucking wimps many of my fellow white males are.

Ironic you said that "nobody cares" in your previous post, about "wokeness" and yet Concord shut down in 2 weeks (a lifespan sjorter than that of a fly). So clearly people care.

Sure. Currently white males are starting to fall out of college - more women than man are getting degrees, most campuses are filled with more women than men and more women are getting high paying fields than men. This leads to a large "leftover male" population that wont be able to find a mate, it will also lead to a further declining birthrate. Thats not even mentioning how laws favor women (minority women in particular) where women get a much smaller sentence for the same crime, women win the majority of cases, etc. In college if you qre currently a white male - particularly in areas in Medicine and law, there is quite significant discrimination as program directors are now largely minorities and will not higher white men because "they have the advantage" and because there are numerous programs favoring minorities (they can get same position with a much smaller score). This is just one of the many ways whites get discriminated against.

Prior to encountering woke people that started shoving their agenda fown everyones throat, it never crossed my mind to discriminate whites, blacks, asians, etc and I'd hire anyone if they qualified. I guess Wokes are the true racists.


Last edited by Cato-the-younger on 15 September 2024 at 2:25 pm UTC

So then, how about Fortnite on Linux / Steam Deck? Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said when it hits "tens of millions of users" that it "would actually make sense to support it". We must be pretty close by now right? Why ignore a platform that's sold multiple millions, and is clearly just continuing to fly off the shelves?

I've seen more consistency in /dev/random's output than Tim Sweeney's statements.

It also has further downstream knockon social effects that dont end up benefitting you.

Which ones?

The current ones that seem to be popping up is where certain people can't get promotions or hired because of their ethnicity isn't 'diverse' enough. There are lawsuits, for example, against IBM for not promoting someone who has been at the company for decades, but was told more or less that he would not be promoted because he wasn't diverse enough... then you have Gina Carano suing Disney for wrongful termination, etc. If you go looking through various codes of conduct (Gnome for example) and they're clearly racist against people who are white.

'Woke' is basically an ideology that says the minorities should be the majority and that the majority should bend the knee for being awful.

When you can show me a place where white males make less money on average than minorities, or have less wealth on average than minorities, I'll start to care. If you look at the stats, you will notice that there are NO signs of this coming close to happening. And despite all the anecdotal whining, they've done experiments in the US: They do sets of loan applications and job applications in pairs that are identical except one has a typically "white-sounding" name attached to it and the other has a typically "black-sounding" name attached to it. The ones assumed to be white get hired more often, get the loans more often, and if both get the loans the "black-sounding" name on average gets charged a higher interest rate. So for now all the bitching and moaning from white males about how terribly they're treated because of wokeness and reverse discrimination is going to get from me a sad song on the world's smallest violin.

God, I just get so ashamed of what fucking wimps many of my fellow white males are.

Ah, so what you're saying is the cure for racism is more racism? I believe that the answer to it is fairness across the board. There's a culture issue going on, it has less to do about what color your skin is and what culture you're from. There are a lot of individuals who escape that culture, and others do not.

If people are getting screwed over based on what color their skin is, than it is wrong, period. That's the whole purpose of discrimination laws.

Discrimination laws might get the job done in much of Europe, where the class system is relatively compressed, social programs exist and pretty much work, education is cheap or free and fairly equally delivered, unions are widespread and sectoral bargaining means most people not in a union still pretty much have a union contract. And where, far as I can make out, people take such laws fairly seriously. I have doubts, but sure, maybe.

In the US, such laws do little.
(hidden is explanation of why)

Spoiler, click me

Hierarchy is much steeper there and natural opportunities for class mobility much more constrained. So for instance, in the US, most people can be fired from their job for no reason. So it's illegal to fire someone because they are from some race or religion, or because they're trying to start a union, but it's not illegal to just fire them without saying why. Similarly, as long as you don't say why you didn't hire someone, or didn't give them a loan, or whatever . . . and indeed lots of people charging a black family higher interest for a loan or not hiring a black for a management job aren't being consciously racist; they're just white people who have a "sense" for who's higher risk or who's not a "fit", which sense somewhere at the back of their mind involves blackness as a risk factor. And of course, nearly all the people making these decisions are white. They're not going to notice this stuff--it has no impact on anyone they know. Incidentally, when there's talk about AI doing racist stuff, it's because they fed the AIs on data from this kind of decision maker and it took in the tacit bias from the data it got fed.

Or if you look at education--in the United States, primary and high school education are locally funded by property taxes, and property values vary wildly, so poor neighborhoods have very crappy schools. But wait, there's more! Federal funding tends to go preferentially to schools which are already performing well (not by accident, by design; it's supposed to be an incentive to compete), which is to say not the poor ones. And of course for the rich there are lots of private schools. And just having gone to schools known to be bad makes you less hireable. Since neighborhoods are also very segregated, and blacks are much poorer than whites on average, functionally "black schools" suck and make people less able to get hired.

There's a whole constellation of this kind of stuff all kind of working together.

To make antiracism laws perform effectively, you'd have to do massive witch hunts. You think people bitch about affirmative action, discrimination laws strong enough and strongly enforced enough to work in the US would be just insane police state shit. It's probably less intrusive just to have a quota. And the idea is that once the numbers are about in tune with population sizes, it also won't be just whites (or males) making the hiring decisions and so forth . . . there will be people in the decision-making part of the system to whom the whole setup isn't invisible. I would agree that there are drawbacks, but if you're going to have a steeply hierarchical and unequal system in the first place, nothing is going to work really well when it comes to trying to make people equal.

Most "equality" movements are actually supremacy movements masquerading as a "equality" movement to make it more palatable. Take Feminism, it has achieved "equality of females" (though if you know history females werent at all oppressed and were celebrated all throughout human history) and is now trying to "win" women more rights compared to men. Same with BLM - there is little discrimination of Blacks at an institutional level - some holdouts like tech still exist, but broadly blacks have more advantages should they wish to use them.

Next those claims of "education being unequal due to income" makes no sense. I know plenty of immigrants from Eastern Europe who came to the US with nary a penny and were able to become rich. They have Eastern European names (by the logic of the studies you cite, they should not have been hireable as their names are too foreign and would scare someone hiring) and yet they were able to get hired. They speak English with an accent too. And yet they did better than many locals who speak better English and have American names.

Those studies you mention miss on crucial points - education doesnt help if the communities do not value them. This is why poor Asian communities are able to do well, because parents will put all their money into their childs education, whereas black families dont - even when in many cases they live in similar neighborhoods. The question we should be asking why is it that some cultures value education over others.

For the Asians its likely Confucian values. For the Eastern Europeans its due to Communist legacy. Americans dont value education as much culturally.


Last edited by Cato-the-younger on 15 September 2024 at 2:39 pm UTC

though if you know history females werent at all oppressed and were celebrated all throughout human history

In my country (Germany), women weren't allowed to
* attend university 130 years ago,
* make politics 120 years ago,
* elect 110 years ago,
* decide how their own money is used in marriage 70 years ago,
* work without their husbands allowance 70 years ago.

But I guess they were celebrated, huh?

I'm still surprised by people saying such obvious lies.


Last edited by Eike on 15 September 2024 at 4:28 pm UTC

Most "equality" movements are actually supremacy movements masquerading as a "equality" movement to make it more palatable.

Well that's a whole lot of projection. The only movement I'm aware of that is like that is the white one.

So here's the thing: Pretty much everything you're saying is objectively false. The statistics, when not cherry-picked carefully, make this clear. Also the history--that stuff about women, WTF?! So, you are either deeply but aggressively ignorant, or you are lying like a rug on the assumption that your audience is ignorant. In either case, I'm really not interested in talking to you any further.

There is one true thing--it seems these days that more women than men are going to college. And yet, the wage gap between men and women, with men getting paid more, remains pretty steady. But none of this implies that women somehow owe men relationships. If you're an incel (maybe you're not, maybe you're just promoting their stupid memes for other reasons), what you should do is quit whining and bitching about women and instead try learning to be a decent person that women won't have strong reasons to dislike . . . which might require exiting a culture that seems to actively promote being a total racist sexist asshole that most women, and decent men, are unlikely to want to spend time with. Because you get in relationships with women when they want to be in a relationship with you.

though if you know history females werent at all oppressed and were celebrated all throughout human history

In my country (Germany), women weren't allowed to
* attend university 130 years ago,
* make politics 120 years ago,
* elect 110 years ago,
* decide how their own money is used in marriage 70 years ago,
* work without their husbands allowance 70 years ago.

But I guess they were celebrated, huh?

I'm still surprised by people saying such obvious lies.

And in your country (Germany), men of low socioeconomic status weren't allowed to:
*attend universities 130 years ago (lack of money)
*make politics 120 years ago (they werent landowners or rich so their opinions didnt matter)
*elect (see above reasons)

So maybe it had nothing to do with being women, and everything to do with low socioeconomic class?🤔 of course people ignore that, either to push an agenda or due to ignorance.

And yes, if you study ancient history - there were plenty of festivals and events celebrating womanhood, fertility and motherhood. Indeed, many civilizations like the Babylonians had MULTIPLE festivals dedicated to women and fertility. They even had a goddess for women they celebrated and had her statues all over the city. This was also true of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc. So stop spreading absolute and utter lies about women being oppressed. Actually, midwifery was very common in the Hellenic world, and was primairly practiced by women with women writing numerous treatsies on the matter with many exclusively female schools dedicated to the subject.

At least do proper research before and think about what you write before writing nonsense

Most "equality" movements are actually supremacy movements masquerading as a "equality" movement to make it more palatable.

Well that's a whole lot of projection. The only movement I'm aware of that is like that is the white one.

So here's the thing: Pretty much everything you're saying is objectively false. The statistics, when not cherry-picked carefully, make this clear. Also the history--that stuff about women, WTF?! So, you are either deeply but aggressively ignorant, or you are lying like a rug on the assumption that your audience is ignorant. In either case, I'm really not interested in talking to you any further.

There is one true thing--it seems these days that more women than men are going to college. And yet, the wage gap between men and women, with men getting paid more, remains pretty steady. But none of this implies that women somehow owe men relationships. If you're an incel (maybe you're not, maybe you're just promoting their stupid memes for other reasons), what you should do is quit whining and bitching about women and instead try learning to be a decent person that women won't have strong reasons to dislike . . . which might require exiting a culture that seems to actively promote being a total racist sexist asshole that most women, and decent men, are unlikely to want to spend time with. Because you get in relationships with women when they want to be in a relationship with you.

What is false exactly? That the rhetoric of say BLM if used by whites would get them labelled as "white supremacists"? Are you going to deny that? Or how about the rhetoric we hear from Feminists in regards to men - if whites used such rhetoric against any other race they would be called supremacists, and rightfully so. But we are somehow supposed to believe that neither of those are supremacist movements? Riiiighhtt

And what is false about women? Do you deny that many ancient Civilizations celebrated womenhood, fertility and motherhood? Is that why the Babylonians had statues of Ishtar all over their cities and even a temple dedicated to Her? Or is that why the Hellenistic world had all female schools dedicated to midwifery with women writing extensive treatsies on the matter that survive to present day? Or how about basically every ancient civilization having numerous festivals dedicated to women? Are those lies too? Or how about elderly women having very high social status and playing crucial roles in their communities in early human societies? Or how about the first all womens monastic college that opened in America in 1637, a year after Harvard?

Sounds like you havent done your research or thought abt it much lol.

Wage gap remains steady? You must be living in an alternate universe lmao. Heres statistics from the Brookings institute:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F58c2d3fc-40b0-4a21-a270-9b1b7669c4bd_1629x1185.png

I see no wage gap. Do you?

Heres more

https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

And nobody said anybody owes anyone relationships. Did you not read what I wrote? Or did you let your own preconcieved biases and emotions cloud your ability to reason. The statistics on this is pretty clear - highly educated women have a harder time dating because they price themselves out of the market and raise their own standards too high that they can no longer find a partner they view as "suitable" due to differences in male and female mating psychology. At this point the data on this is pretty overwhelming. It has nothing to do with childish notions of anybody "owing" anyone relationships

Another thing is clear as well, its that Blacks in America have different cultural values compared to different minority groups which is what is holding them back. Most institutional barriers have long been removed - something you did not address in your rather childish response. How else do you explain the success of Asian, Indian or Eastern European immigrants when they have difficulties with the language, foreign sounding names and even look different.

You need to do better research and learn to seperate bias from preconcieved emotion.


Last edited by Cato-the-younger on 30 September 2024 at 4:14 pm UTC

What is false exactly? That the rhetoric of say BLM if used by whites would get them labelled as "white supremacists"?

The rhetoric of BLM is that blacks in the US would really prefer it if cops would stop killing them. It would be weird coming from whites because the cops don't kill them nearly as much.
Really, what are you on?

What is false exactly? That the rhetoric of say BLM if used by whites would get them labelled as "white supremacists"?

The rhetoric of BLM is that blacks in the US would really prefer it if cops would stop killing them. It would be weird coming from whites because the cops don't kill them nearly as much.
Really, what are you on?

Lol. If it was just about cops, I would agree. But its not.

And nice job addressing everything else I wrote.

From the wikipedia page, "BLM and its related organizations typically advocate for various policy changes related to black liberation"

Noble goals all, but if one were to replace "Black liberation" with "white liberation" it reads as a neo-nazi creed by Nick Land. And if we are to analyze the broader agenda of BLM and Black liberation movements they arent that much different from white supremacists.

Tell me this - if Black Americans are targeted because of race, why do African immigrants to America not experience this? Perhaps its related to socioeconomic class and poverty rather than race? This further confirms what I said anove abt supremacy movements.

As a corollary, perhaps the poor outcomes of American Blacks has more to do with cultural factors considering that poor immigrants from Africa tend to do better? Nobody is having this conversation.

Is police brutality in America a problem? Yes. Do American Blacks disproportionately suffer from poverty? Yes. But the question then arises why is the experience of African Blacks in America vastly different from that of American Blacks? The outcomes of Black Africans in America are much different and they largely do not experience the same issues. Should America do more outreach to Blacks in the Third World as the Soviet Union did? Probably.

The issues with American Police Brutality are systemic issues related to a broken policing system in general.


Last edited by Cato-the-younger on 30 September 2024 at 5:08 pm UTC

In my country (Germany), women weren't allowed to
* attend university 130 years ago,
* make politics 120 years ago,
* elect 110 years ago,
* decide how their own money is used in marriage 70 years ago,
* work without their husbands allowance 70 years ago.

But I guess they were celebrated, huh?

I'm still surprised by people saying such obvious lies.

And in your country (Germany), men of low socioeconomic status weren't allowed to:
[...]
*elect (see above reasons)

You're wrong. Feel free to read it up.

(Interestingly, they had a higher quote of participation in 1912 than in 2021, so the poor were not only allowed to vote, they actually did.)

At least do proper research before and think about what you write before writing nonsense

Well...

though if you know history females werent at all oppressed and were celebrated all throughout human history

I'm still surprised by people saying such obvious lies.

In my country (Germany), women weren't allowed to
* attend university 130 years ago,
* make politics 120 years ago,
* elect 110 years ago,
* decide how their own money is used in marriage 70 years ago,
* work without their husbands allowance 70 years ago.

But I guess they were celebrated, huh?

I'm still surprised by people saying such obvious lies.

And in your country (Germany), men of low socioeconomic status weren't allowed to:
[...]
*elect (see above reasons)

You're wrong. Feel free to read it up.

(Interestingly, they had a higher quote of participation in 1912 than in 2021, so the poor were not only allowed to vote, they actually did.)

At least do proper research before and think about what you write before writing nonsense

Well...

though if you know history females werent at all oppressed and were celebrated all throughout human history

I'm still surprised by people saying such obvious lies.

I dont read German. Give me an English language source to verify.

Or better yet, go read "German Electoral History: From Empire to Republic" or "Suffrage and Voting Rights in Germany: From the 19th Century to Modern times" - it talks about restricted voting rights across German states based on property ownership, income or tax contributions restricting the ability of lower class men to vote.

The Weimar Republic introduced universal sufferage for all citizens over 20 regardless of Gender and class. So again your argument falls apart.

So no, women werent restricted from voting by the "evul patriarchy" or whatever other nonsense is promugulated nowadays. It was limited for everyone based on socioeconomic class, which is also something Marx touched on.

What obvious lies about women did I say? You conveniently ignore everything I wrote earlier about the celebration of women and their fertility and status. Of course you did though, as it doesnt fit your narrow narrative of the world.

The blatant lies and misrepresentation of history by the woke crowd for their own political agendas is absolutely sickening and tiring.


Last edited by Cato-the-younger on 30 September 2024 at 7:17 pm UTC

Why ignore a platform that's sold multiple millions, and is clearly just continuing to fly off the shelves?

Cause Sweeney hates us.

Sweeney doesn't hate us.
He hates Valve, because he can't use anti-competition law to force them to do his bidding(they're not anti-competative enough) and he hates software freedom, because it enables others to compete on his turf.
Also tens of millions of users isn't actually that much.
Serious platforms do ~150 million units nowadays.
To Sweeney the Steam Deck is still like the Vision Pro was to IOS developers.
Support dependent attempt at ensuring the future of someone you normally can't get around, but this time you can.

Speaking of Black Myth: Wukong, can it run on Steam Deck? I assume that is way too demanding title for the Steam Deck to handle, but I just thought of asking anyway.

these people seem to think so.

I dont read German. Give me an English language source to verify.

Why would you even dispute the fact that even poor men had the right to vote in many democracies well before women? If you claim to have researched this and can't find any evidence, I can only conclude that you intentionally skip over any source that doesn't seem to back up your claims.

I'm no expert on history myself, but here's a neat timeline of women's suffrage worldwide, and it has some surprising outliers. The famously "direct" democracy Switzerland only gave women the right to vote in the seventies, with one of their cantons (states) resisting this until 1991, when they were forced to comply. Swiss males have been able to vote since 1848. (If you don't trust the source, all the dates are independently verifiable, and there are links to references at the end.)

The blatant lies and misrepresentation of history by the woke crowd for their own political agendas is absolutely sickening and tiring.

Says the person whose "knowledge" of history seems to be based entirely on misinformation and talking points from manosphere influencers grifters.

You're wrong. Feel free to read it up.

(Interestingly, they had a higher quote of participation in 1912 than in 2021, so the poor were not only allowed to vote, they actually did.)

I dont read German. Give me an English language source to verify.

That's your problem. I can. And did.
The source given is the German main legislative, Bundestag.
(I wonder if they'll invent automatic translation some day. Nah, sounds like science fiction fantasy to me.)

Or better yet, go read "German Electoral History: From Empire to Republic" or "Suffrage and Voting Rights in Germany: From the 19th Century to Modern times" - it talks about restricted voting rights across German states based on property ownership, income or tax contributions restricting the ability of lower class men to vote.

You seem to be talking about another period of time, or other countries. We're talking about Weimarer Republic, not some anonymous "German states".

The Weimar Republic introduced universal sufferage for all citizens over 20 regardless of Gender and class. So again your argument falls apart.

Again you're talking about another period of time. That was in 1918.

I was talking - as you can easily see by only the headlines in the source I linked - about the time 1871-1918.

Again, for you convenience:
Women were discriminated against.
They were not allowed to vote, while men were allowed to vote independent of class and social status.
(And no, celebrating somebody doesn't compensate for basic rights.)

What obvious lies about women did I say? You conveniently ignore everything I wrote earlier about the celebration of women and their fertility and status. Of course you did though, as it doesnt fit your narrow narrative of the world.

I was ignoring that to you favour. Would you give up voting right for men and exchange it for being "celebrated"? I sure wouldn't. It has got nothing to do with anybody's rights, and actually, it's quite showing that you seem to think it would.

The blatant lies and misrepresentation of history by the woke crowd for their own political agendas is absolutely sickening and tiring.

So sorry for facts sickening and tiring you. It's a tough life sometimes...


Last edited by Eike on 2 October 2024 at 7:09 am UTC

What is false exactly? That the rhetoric of say BLM if used by whites would get them labelled as "white supremacists"?

The rhetoric of BLM is that blacks in the US would really prefer it if cops would stop killing them. It would be weird coming from whites because the cops don't kill them nearly as much.
Really, what are you on?

Lol. If it was just about cops, I would agree. But its not.

And nice job addressing everything else I wrote.

The problem is that pretty much everything else you wrote, all this stuff you think, is also based on weird propaganda that is not actually true about the real world.
There was a time when argument between the left and the right wing, even the fairly far right wing, was more or less possible, since everyone was working with pretty much the same set of facts, maybe emphasizing different ones, but the main dispute was about interpretation and ethical values, models of how it all fit together. I am not young, I remember when it was like that. Since that time, the hard right has gone and invented themselves a different set of "facts" which are just not true . . . there's still some stuff which is "true" if weirdly cherry-picked, like finding some "feminist" nobody has ever heard of doing a rant and then saying "look, this is how feminists think!!1!", but increasingly it's all just made up from nothing, having no relationship to reality in any way. Just simple lies.

It's clever, in the sense that if you want fundamentally decent people to support horrible ideas, probably the most effective way is to give them fake facts that support the horrible ideas instead of the real facts, which don't. But I don't have time or energy to debunk every goddamn weird social media echo-chamber nonsense you've unfortunately absorbed, and you wouldn't believe me if I did. It's a pity, and I'm sorry.

What is false exactly? That the rhetoric of say BLM if used by whites would get them labelled as "white supremacists"?

The rhetoric of BLM is that blacks in the US would really prefer it if cops would stop killing them. It would be weird coming from whites because the cops don't kill them nearly as much.
Really, what are you on?

Lol. If it was just about cops, I would agree. But its not.

And nice job addressing everything else I wrote.

The problem is that pretty much everything else you wrote, all this stuff you think, is also based on weird propaganda that is not actually true about the real world.
There was a time when argument between the left and the right wing, even the fairly far right wing, was more or less possible, since everyone was working with pretty much the same set of facts, maybe emphasizing different ones, but the main dispute was about interpretation and ethical values, models of how it all fit together. I am not young, I remember when it was like that. Since that time, the hard right has gone and invented themselves a different set of "facts" which are just not true . . . there's still some stuff which is "true" if weirdly cherry-picked, like finding some "feminist" nobody has ever heard of doing a rant and then saying "look, this is how feminists think!!1!", but increasingly it's all just made up from nothing, having no relationship to reality in any way. Just simple lies.

It's clever, in the sense that if you want fundamentally decent people to support horrible ideas, probably the most effective way is to give them fake facts that support the horrible ideas instead of the real facts, which don't. But I don't have time or energy to debunk every goddamn weird social media echo-chamber nonsense you've unfortunately absorbed, and you wouldn't believe me if I did. It's a pity, and I'm sorry.

But you have to admit, this happens with both the far-right and far-left. They are sucked so far down their particular rabbit holes due to whatever modern algorithm there is, that the only real way to dig yourself out is try and find multiple fact checking sources. Bith sides are full of crap, and usually the truth is somewhere closer to the middle.

Ha, to change up the "both sides have very fine people." I will say both sides have very terrible people. Fuuu, I saw earlier a post by some woman who was happy that towns of Republicans were washed away frome Helene... like wtf?