Jump to content

Varysblackfyre321

Members
  • Content count

    2,732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Varysblackfyre321

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday February 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hell?
  • Interests
    Sitting on my ass and watching dumb videos on YT.

Previous Fields

  • Name
    Roose

Recent Profile Visitors

3,069 profile views
  1. Varysblackfyre321

    The First Law Re-Read Volume II - rereads are a dish best served cold

    Gorst would probably have to lose the high-pitched voice. A massive change I know but Dubbing him over seems to something that probably look too silly to put on screen. Meh, this seems a tad off. If Glocka didn’t legitimately put some trust in his practicals he wouldn’t have been surprised at both having betrayed him. The best his mind conjured up from the evidence is that one of them eventually did betray him in the end but he didn’t really conceive of them having done such until he’s been placed in a vulnerable position with Frost. I do agree he’s need to unload a lot more of his more “sensitive thoughts” on someone-why not Glocka’s butler? He’s already seen Glocka in his most vulnerable states. What I fear with casting Glocka is that they would beautify him like the show AGOT did with Tyrion-Peter Dinklage is short but he’s still a pretty good looking dude. I fear Glocka just getting a limp and maybe a cool scar but overall be kept handsome. Well the North until recently has been very isolated from Bayaaz and the other Mangi influences in comparison to the rest of the world. A northerner like Logan not knowing of the Magi is realistic. And in terms of West not reacting to Zacaryus by the time of the original trilogy the Mahi have been relegated to old legends to which increasingly people in his society are forgetting. By the end of the original tribology Zacharus, and Bayaaz being widely known makes sense because of the tremendous publicly noted actions that would inevitably get everybody talking about the magi. Like for example I’m pretty sure most people today in America would not know who the 32nd President was if asked on the spot. The man was one of the most powerful man on Earth at the time, probably did things that would effect the nation to this day but I’m sure most people could not name him. If that President suddenly came back from the dead and blew up a city or helped in the formation of a new empire his name would be more easily recognized.
  2. Varysblackfyre321

    Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

    How bad does the message have to be before the speaker gets called out as vile? If a man politely says he desires “peaceful ethnic cleansing” of non-whites and for gays to be executed or locked up for having gay sex, is it really such a detriment for someone to call that man a racist or homophobe? The position is already offensive and one of condescension. So why not call it innately bigoted-hell monsterous even? Because it might make the speaker in question feel attacked? I don't believe that's grounds enough to reframe. Honestly the conduct your promoting would mostly accomplish give off the impression that one should be able to hold grossly bigoted ideas that would entail the mistreatment an entire groups based on characteristics almost always entirely out of their control without being looked at as a bad person. A person getting into a debate with David Duke is not ethically obliged to try to respond to his Anti-Semitic rambling in a way that won't make Duke feel attacked as a person And perhaps it would get the bigot in question to go “geez it sure is great we could respectfully disagree that blacks deserve to be kicked out of America for being black but glad we could still possibly grab a drink later” and give you pat on the back in the end going "we could just respectfully disagree and there's nothing wrong with that" Like with Joe Biden. He basically bragged about being able to do do with old segregationists-sure they pledged their entire political careers largely in trying to keep non-whites subservient in America but at least they were civil-hell they even managed to stay friends. The last thing I want them to do to hold back. If someone thinks I’m being grossly racist they should call me out as such rather than trying to spare my feelings just to keep the conversation “civil”. I will not get mad at someone for daring to call a “polite” white nationalist who espousing how non-whites are inferior and how Jews are responsible for all the major wars in the world a bad person just because that white nationalist May call me as racist for not thinking it would be bad for the majority of America to be non-white in the future. Heres the thing a conversation a conversation being "civil" in all aspects does not mean it is accomplishing anything good. And to the bolded where did I say that? I’d be the first one to say a neo-Nazi should be legally allowed to call me along with the rest of my family inferiors in say public park. He or she has the right to speak there. And I have the right to call them idiotic racists in response. Calling a person a bigot in response to their words is not the same thing as stifling their freedom of speech. Honestly, such an idea gives off the impression of undue entitlement and ironically promotes censorship. That it is your right to say whatever you want and other people should not be allowed to call you a bigot of any sort regardless of your rhetoric. It is certainly a lot more appealing to those most who have political/social power in a society. Which in turn does reverberate throughout society in a largely negative way. CEOs, board members for massive corporations, and politicians do-shape how society functions. Like it or not Rand’s philosophy does have relevance to this day:https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/7-pols-who-praised-ayn-rand-075667
  3. Varysblackfyre321

    Workable Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

    I’ve recently read a book based on Bioshock 1 and I think the writers gave a more realistic interpretation on how such a society could fail when including some missing elements you noted in Rand’s fantasyland. For clarification for anyone who doesn’t know what Bioshock is its a first person shooter RPG video game that’s centered around deconstructing Rand’s philosophy. The game like Atlas Shrugged features a rich ultra-capitalistic Billionaire, named Andrew Ryran(yes the likeness to Rand’s name was deliberate) who gets tired of “government overreach”oppressing great geniuses like himself and builds his own Capitalist utopia called Rapture. He largely fails because he had to contend with the things you’ve noted that were missing Galt’s paradise-actual workers(everyone not being simply being able to get robots to the labor), and capitalists who act like capitalists through trying to constantly undercut each other and use their capital to force society to shift in the directions that profits them. The Bioshock novel gets much more detailed into various situations that would inevitably rise in a society that takes capitalism to this extremity and would eventually lead to it’s collapse. There’s one instance in the novel where Ryan encounters a situation where the only garbage collection business(a monopoly), has raised the prices at a ludicrous rate specifically when dealing with someone whose a rival of his in another area of business-that person not being able to thrive given his business is constantly surrounded by garbage. Ryan’s response is basically “quit whining you beta bitch it’s the law of the Jungle” when the victim begs for government intervention and asks why such a shady practice be allowed-after all garbage collection is a public good it shouldn’t be left in the hands of the free market totally unregulated. A situation like this(a capitalist encroaching heavily on the territory of another capitalist) could not have been included in Rand’s fantasy and even though it would make sense because it would frame uber-capitalists in a negative light. Rand’s capitalists once in Galt’s society must be in a sense neutered in terms of competitiveness and made to be sated with their current state of wealth. It’s hard to look like paradise and have it’s occupants look like the best of humanity when everyone is trying to destroy each other to get ahead through really duplicitous means. But you see he uses “polite” language when denigrates the working poor as intrinsically inferior to the great “visionaries” That means he should get a polite response. Because being “civil” is really the most important thing. Kidding. I’ve come to believe most people who heavily moan about the issue of “civility”in terms of how people address really dehumanizing ideas fall into three stripes-idiots who are unknowingly doing the work of bigots through hyper-fixating on things like “tone” which in turn draws attention away from the ideas being criticized, egotists who think they’re superior by virtue of being “big enough” by saying they want to keep the conversation “polite”(oh they’re so moderate and rational), and bigots who want to normalize gross ideas through acting outraged at the less”polite” responses given to their rhetoric.
  4. Varysblackfyre321

    UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

    Complain about Eastern Europeans ruining things? Check. Get mad at the mere question being asked to define British culture in a U.K politics thread even though “protecting” British is the main justification for leaving the E.U and one of the main reasons you give for it? Check. Proceed to not define BrItish culture and get into detail on how those dirty Eastern Europeans are ruining it? Also check. Get mad at Americans for daring participate in a U.K. politics thread even if they’re just raising the same points/questions other U.K. posters have raised before against your stance? Check. A predictable but still disappointing response from you. I’ll be honest I don’t think you can give an answer to any of the questions given to you now anymore than you could in the past. I see no point in PMing on this because because public statements should at most times be defended publicly, when questioned about them. Lol what? You could just as easily run away after making a seemingly controversial statement in a private conversation on here as you could on a public thread. This is a really lame excuse to refuse to answer the questions here.
  5. Varysblackfyre321

    UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

    No you didn’t. Mostly when asked to actually describe it you get mad, accuse the questioner of being wrong to ask such a question(you wouldn’t ask a Frenchman to describe his culture or some such nonsense) and proceed to never really answer the question. You haven’t given specifics in terms of how Eastern Europeans are destroying British culture. Just vague invocations that they’re mere presence is doing just that. If you can actually can give meaningful specifics on this please, do so, right here-I see no reason why I should come to you and ask the same question in private. It looked that way to me too. But I’m just an ignorant Yank. Please, HOI give specifics on what you think British culture is once and for all and see how it stacks up to the scrutiny of other British people in this thread. What significant traits or values integral to British culture are under threat from those dirty Eastern Europeans?
  6. Varysblackfyre321

    UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

    I take your post to mean you agree with the idea of any commentary you’ve given on American politics, culture, or figures in the US politics thread should be ignored because you are British. Interesting position to take I will admit. Though, I have to say what I really wanted to do point out the absurdity in your complaints about immigration from Eastern Europe destroying British culture without really giving specifics when called upon to do so. And remarking(as many have including some in these U.K. threads) that Brexit will inevitably lead to higher amounts of immigrants from countries that have cultures that are far far different than the Eastern Europeans you feel the need to moan about.
  7. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Yes, I’m sure you’re mad at the civil rights protesters who when often marching against 60s to protest Jim Crow blocked traffic. Why couldn’t good white people be just allowed to mow these protesters down with their car and continue onto to their destination. Minor acts of civil disobedience with no immediate threat of violence should literally mean its permissible for other actors on the road slightly inconvenienced to kill/managle your body. Meh, riot, a peaceful demonstration of civil disobedience, same thing.
  8. Varysblackfyre321

    UK Politics: It's Life Pfeffel but not as we know it

    Yeah he has argued that they’re ruining British culture. In what way? Who knows. Who cares. Maybe they’re going to make drinking tea or playing rugby not as popular. Actual specifics don’t really seem to matter. But at least British culture is secured from those dirty East Europeans-filthy white, secular, Christian bastards-they have nothing in common with native Britains. I do wonder if remainders would’ve found more success with adverting Brexit if they simply focused on the message of “this will lead to more brown foreigners in this country” rather than the message of “this will likely/definitively destroy the country’s economy and political standing”.
  9. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Guys, come on he’s not racist-he just thinks that non-white people who are uber poor are far less deserving the chance at entry to America than all those equally poor Whites let in from Europe in the past. Honestly, I’m surprised he didn’t just literally just say white instead of “from Europe” and leave it there.
  10. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    “Give me your rich and powerful, and preferably white, masses huddled in first class waiting to be free” It says something about Cuccinelli when he argues this policy isn’t prejudiced because it’s been around for 140 years while at the same time wax poetically that his grandfather was an immigrant. This policy was exactly for those like Cuccinelli’s grandfather. Back then it was the “ savage”Irish, and ”Dagos” that needed to be stopped from coming here. Now it’s Mexicans and Latin Americans.
  11. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Well neither of my examples is not example of discrimination on sexual orientation. They’re examples of people being discriminated against based on their political stances. I have to disagree. I see the only real justifications for such rules is to protect groups that could not reasonably be expected to change ingrained characteristics. So a member of the KKK should be able to wear his or her robes go to an African-American sculptor, and request service so long as they don’t tack on a specific/explicit message with the service? I find such an idea unsatisfactory. Next, you may as well argue that a Sculptor could not refuse to hire that KKK member based off they’re political beliefs/affiliations. See the problem here is that if social-media platforms are compelled to cater to every single idea floated they’re being compelled in the same way thing sculptor would be . albeit with a grander scale involved. There’s no reasonable difference that could be seen between compelling a baker to write “Jews are corrupting the government” and compelling a media platform to feature the same messaging on their platform. Both private entities are being forced to have their services be used in the promotion of a message they apparently find disagreeable. I don’t think political stances NAMBLA has about unfair society treats pedophiles or the KKK for how it’s so unfair how the government would go after them for killing non-whites, or Incels on how awful women are need government protection.
  12. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    I think there’s a fundamental difference between protecting groups from being discriminated from private establishments based on their sexual orientation and protecting certain groups from facing discrimination over their politics-which what you seem to be advocating for. A person can’t change their orientation. They could shift their viewpoints. If a Neo-Nazi dressed in an old SS uniform comes to a Jewish bakery and offers the bakers present for a cake that says “America only belongs to the whites “are you seriously contending that Baker should be legally obliged to fulfill that request? Hell, how about a baker who refuses to sell to those who publicly denounce his products as terrible?
  13. Varysblackfyre321

    The First Law Re-Read Volume II - rereads are a dish best served cold

    I honestly always disliked the ideas Logen’s B9 state being just him acting crazy or supernaturally possessed. I think it’s more a state of euphoria brought on by an individual willingness to throw away anything-morales, feelings, a sense preservation, for the love of carnage. And if she actually tried, could she actually succeed? I genuinely don’t it’s likely.
  14. Varysblackfyre321

    The First Law Re-Read Volume II - rereads are a dish best served cold

    He’s what? Over 6 ft, a warrior by trade, always has a blade on his person? While Monza at this juncture is still heavily recuperating from her injuries to the point where walking is an ordeal. The biggest ordeal would possibly have been dealing with friendly but if the man truly wanted to leave I don’t see him allowing the fear of danger stopping him-especially when following Monza has already shown to be deadly already. Even after leaving the Warehouse the man could’ve left plenty of times before they even met up with Morveer. Like, while the two were sleeping, or he could walk away after saying he had to take a shit. Monza’s suicide Squad(that’s what I’m calling them) was not a large party especially initially. If he truly wanted to leave he had plenty of opportunities to do so. He didn’t. It doesn’t seem to take that much coaxing from Monza to stay after she indirectly murdered dozens of civilians at the bank. Sure he whines he’d leave but if he was truly struck by the events personally he would be compelled to stay over some teary eyed proclamations of remorse by Monza. Imo Monza changed Shivers to the same degree Bethod changed Logen. Which is to say really not much. What Monza, and Bethod mostly did was give an environment to which they’re servants could let out their true selves and could prosper free of the societal inhibition that grounded their more unsavory tendencies. Shivers and Logen weren’t good men corrupted by their evil bosses. Let’s not forget Logan as a teenager tried to murder his father, and literally did murder one of his friends in one of his fits of rage. By the time he met Bethod he was already a time bomb waiting to go off-it’s just that he hid it better. Nor that Shivers desired to kill Logan because that’s what society expected him to do. I can’t help but draw a parallel between how Shivers acted to Monza and how Logen acted with Bayazz. No matter how uncomfortable each northern professes to be with their leaders’ actions they never opt to simply leave even when they’re in a situation to do so. They cry they don’t desire to see others hurt needlessly but keep/place themselves in a position to where violent actions could be justified in some form. Also, I have to wonder what teenage Logan thought in his head when he went into one of famous his homicidal rages. When he goes totally ballistic(I.e the b9 mode), we see him refer to himself as the bloody-nine. So did teenage Logen refer to himself as Logen? I don’t think he went that a slope after his disfigurement. Remember he actually questioned Monza’s decision not to murder that entire family.
  15. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

    Hey following literal neo-nazis on Twitter doesn’t show anything. Next you’ll be telling me getting a tattoo of a Swaztika on your face and a shirt with the words “I hate Jews” is indicative of possibly being racist. Goddamn everything is just so PC. But, seriously, it’s interesting(though not that surprising) to see the basic defenses from this racist charlatan’s followers(who totes swear they aren’t racist) mostly just boil down to immediately attacking the people who dared point out she did this as simply bad. Turns out the free-market is unreliable when it doesn’t appear to benefit conservatives enough. Then private entities must be reigned in and forced to feature content that may damage their commercial success. Suddenly companies don’t have free-speech rights. Government needs to step in insure David Duke is able to be on Twitter to tout his views of how awful Jews are. Government stepping in to make sure a poor man die because he lacks the funds to purchase the medicine and treatment he needs to live is big government overreach. And this somehow seems “right” to people.
×