Pinned Tweet
Many people know of the idea of "extraversion" and "introversion", which were coined by Jung. Few actually know what that word actually means.
It's commonly believed that if you are extraverted, you must be social, and that if you are introverted you must be closed off. This simply is not true. When Jung discovered these concepts, it was due to a need to resolve a debate among psychoanalysts at the time over whether people were more object-focused or more subject-focused in reality. This references in some ways the subject-object problem.
"A simple common differentiation for subject and object is: an observer versus a thing that is observed. In certain cases involving personhood, subjects and objects can be considered interchangeable where each label is applied only from one or the other point of view. Subjects and objects are related to the philosophical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity: the existence of knowledge, ideas, or information either dependent upon a subject (subjectivity) or independent from any subject (objectivity)." -Wikipedia
Jung's understanding is that some people were more innately subject-focused and some were more innately object-focused. Some are more subjective and some are more objective. In today's world of course, we tend to value the objective over the subjective, possibly because the ideas of the objective are easier to share between all people, and therefore may be more likely to be relevant to ourselves. The subjective however is very important, as it is essential in understanding ourselves, and our fellow human beings.
The reason we're seeing terms like "social introvert" today is simply because people fail to understand what these terms are to begin with. I would be considered a social introverted. My dominant cognitive function is "introverted intuition" (Ni) but my secondary function is "extraverted feeling" (Fe). Fe is a very social function, and it is the primary way with which I interact with the world. Despite the fact that I am introverted, I can seem very extraverted to people!
There are extroverts who can seem introverted due to their higher level functions not necessarily being geared as much towards communication. Everyone must be capable of some extraversion and some introversion. If this was not the case, you would see people only be stuck in the world around them or only stuck in their heads with no capability to do the other. Sometimes people do try to ignore one, frequently due to some neurosis, but that is a story for another day.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Syfri retweeted
I'm not American, but I am a historian. I view the entire Pacific theatre as something which could have been avoided, but American foreign policy choices and colonial ambitions forced the issue. America did not, however, necessarily want war with Japan.
A land invasion of Japan would have resulted in cataclysmic population collapse, if not outright ethnic cleansing as a consequence of existing Japanese culture and supply constraints.
Across the Pacific theatre, Japan operated under what was close to a "no retreat" doctrine; strategic repositioning could be justified, but ceding territory to mitigate losses was not. It was expected, and required often, that soldiers and civilians both would give their lives for the Emperor. To be clear, this is not an indictment against Japan's honour, as its men fought bravely and legitimately believed that they were fighting an implacable, possibly genocidal threat. The Americans, after all, did not have perfectly friendly relations with Japan for the prior century.
This attitude, and the belief that terrible harms would come upon Japanese women and children, resulted in horrific and avoidable tragedies. There are many stories from Marine veterans of civilians killing themselves when they successfully occupied an island or village. A few hundred, maybe a thousand here and there, but these events were significant enough they made it to American high command and had US troops seriously questioning what they were doing.
And it was for this reason that a mass shock-and-awe decisive strike was planned, to force the unconditional surrender. The American people still wanted revenge and a conditional surrender would not have been that, and, American command wanted to mitigate the damage to civilians because they knew full-well what would happen in the case of a ground invasion.
The final point to take note of is, in the months leading up to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Imperial Japanese Army had started training civilian men and women to fight, using everything from farm tools to sharpened bamboo spears. Whether or not this was out of genuine fear or not is irrelevant; it trains the populace to expect certain things and behave in certain ways.
So, in the case of a ground invasion without the use of nuclear weapons:
A wave of bombers strikes Japanese airfields first, destroying most of them essentially overnight. They also target and destroy any military bases they can find, as the US planes can simply fly higher than the Japanese interceptors. This goes on for two weeks, with a final ultimatum issued: Surrender or the mainland will be invaded. The Japanese generals refuse.
America lands its troops across the Eastern coasts, moving inland rapidly. Warships bombard cities and fortifications, while overhead planes firebomb everything. Even trying to mitigate damages and warning civilians to evacuate, many stay behind to fight and are slaughtered by the thousands. American troops arrive to razed cities with few scattered defenders, most too poorly equipped to present a real threat. Word gets out to the government of Japan, who declares that this is an existential war and that everyone must fight.
The Soviets now, having finished in Germany, are turning Eastward and are moving to invade Hokkaido as well as Japan's remaining territories in continental Asia. Already stretched thin defending against America, the Soviets quickly move in and take over. Thousands of Japanese women, having colonized these provinces when they were conquered, are raped. They later go on to form a distinct local ethnicity of mixed Russo-Japanese people, with much of those continental territories and Hokkaido permanently changed, demographically.
Back on the Mainland, Japan's industrial centres are gone. Instead of nuking them, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are firebombed and the cities do not survive. The devastation and casualty numbers are similar, albeit drawn out over several weeks of sustained bombardment. Due to interruptions in food supplies, millions of urban civilians starve. Many lose faith in the Japanese government and decide to seek refuge in American-built concentration camps where they at least receive food and shelter. These camps are not safe either, however, as while Americans violently punish any rapists found amongst their number, many rapes do still occur. Children trying to protect their mothers are viciously beaten, and this reaches the American mainland as a series of scandals.
Every mile of land secured by American forces comes with at least 50% casualty rates among the locals, often by their own hands, sometimes when they attack American troops. Traps severely damage American troops' morale, but aren't common issues as they push towards Japan's capital. Upon reaching it, the Emperor is quickly found, surrounded, imprisoned and forced to surrender. A press statement is issued, broadcast to every city, every internment camp, every newspaper, etc., mirroring the one we saw in real life. Accompanying it, however, is a declaration that Japan is now an American colony.
Administratively, Japan loses its autonomy. It is given a constitution much more restrictive than the one in real life, however, much of the worst consequences are still avoided for the same reasons as in real life. The major differences are mass depopulation, permanent American bases across the entirety of Japan, and the complete loss of its Northern isles. Hokkaido becomes a Soviet province, completely alien in culture and language from the rest of Japan, forming a North/South Japan not unlike Korea. The entire island is demographically changed, with a large influx of American men taking Japanese women as wives; primarily due to so many of Japan's men being wiped out during the war. Modern parallels to this is Ukrainian women. Japanese itself becomes a secondary, local ethnic language whilst the primary language is English. This is, primarily, for ease of communication between the provisional government of Japan and America.
In this alternate timeline, Communism is much more powerful of a force in Japan as well, thanks to both Soviet and CIA subversion within the country. Its identity already damaged heavily from the war, and demographic changes, it's possible that 'South Japan' ends up seeking unification with 'North Japan', with a constant and persistent risk of violent revolution. That's a bit harder to predict, however.
All in all, while I absolutely loathe the loss of life from using nuclear weapons, I do truly believe it was the lesser of two evils. The alternative sees Japan demographically ruined and its culture annihilated, while losing territory to the Soviets who continue to push their weight around militarily. Without the fear of nuclear exchange, there's no reason for the soviets to ever stop in their expansionism besides domestic tensions and so the second half of the 20th century would have been much bloodier all around.
A terrible case where it was necessary to sacrifice a few, for the sake of the many. Both in Japan, and around the world.
I’m Japanese.
Question for Americans 🇺🇸
If nuclear weapons had NEVER existed during WWII…
Would Japan have stood a chance against America? 🇯🇵⚔️🇺🇸
⚔️ It would’ve been a close fight.
🇺🇸 America would’ve still dominated.
⏳ Japan could’ve held out much longer.
🤔 The outcome might’ve been different.
Was America’s military superiority already overwhelming without the atomic bombs?
I want your honest opinion.
So essentially he owes you sex when you want it but he needs to suck it up and deal with rejection when he wants it.
My husband told me he had stopped initiating sex because he wanted to see how long I could go without noticing that something was wrong in our marriage.
I thought he was joking.
He wasn’t.
It started on a Friday night when he tried to get intimate with me after a stressful week. I told him I was exhausted and wanted to sleep.
He kissed my forehead and said, “Okay, goodnight.”
I didn’t think twice about it.
The following week, he didn’t initiate anything. I assumed he was busy or tired, just like I had been.
Two weeks passed.
Then three.
He was still a good husband. He paid bills, helped around the house, asked about my day, and never complained about anything.
Except that people do in fact remember him. I don't think it's fair to be this callous towards a veteran with PTSD offing himself.
Syfri retweeted
A big part of why America is so goated is we handed it over to autists in the early days and just let them ball out.
Syfri retweeted
Hello Japanese Twitter. I want to explain why Western consumers are often willing to push the boundaries of copyright, even when it's controversial:
Historically, in the West, challenging copyright restrictions has SOMETIMES led to better outcomes for everyone, including the copyright holders themselves.
Take "fair use".
In the US, copyright law allows people to use pieces of copyrighted material for criticism, reviews, education, research, and parody, depending on the circumstances. It's why anyone can make YouTube essays using gameplay footage, review movies using clips, parody existing works, or study copyrighted material.
These freedoms developed over decades of folks challenging copyright restrictions in court. People pushed boundaries, courts established new rules, and consumers benefited. Hooray!
Something similar happened with the "right-to-repair" movement. Manufacturers have used copyright restrictions, software locks, and other barriers to stop people from repairing products they own. Consumers challenged those restrictions, by repairing them anyway, then being sent to court, which helped bring about laws that expanded our repair rights.
Basically we said: "This law sucks. If I buy this shit, I should have basic rights over how I use and repair it."
Now consider Piracy. I don't condone piracy, but I recognise that it has sometimes exposed problems with how entertainment is sold.
Music piracy EXPLODED when people wanted digital music. Then iTunes was created in response, and helped prove that millions of those same pirates were happy to pay for a convenient, affordable service that didn't exist. Movies and TV experienced similar problems, so streaming services were made which helped massively reduce Piracy. PC gaming saw something similar with Steam.
But my favourite example is Crunchyroll!
Crunchyroll started as a website hosting Pirate anime. Western audiences wanted to watch Japanese shows that often weren't legally available in their countries. Eventually, it becamse so big Japan made a deal with Crunchyroll to become a legitimate streaming business. The site now licenses anime directly from Japanese companies.
Today, it has millions of paying subscribers and generates MASSIVE revenue for the Japanese anime industry.
An audience that once watched anime without permission became a massive international customer base willing to pay Japanese companies. Imagine if that demand had simply been dismissed as criminal behaviour, without anyone recognising the business opportunity??
This is the pattern I'm trying to explain.
We see that when consumers push against restrictions, they sometimes expose problems with the existing business model. Companies respond with better services, laws change, and both consumers and creators can benefit.
None of this means piracy is justified or that creators shouldn't be paid. Only that challenging a restriction can SOMETIMES reveal that the damn restriction itself is preventing a better solution, and pressing on that restriction can create to fix.
I think this helps explain a cultural difference between some Western and Japanese attitudes towards copyright. Western consumers often see copyright disputes as ordinary folks fighting against wealthy corporations controlling access to entertainment. Japanese audiences seem to place greater emphasis on respecting the people and companies who created that entertainment.
Of course, neither perspective represents everyone. And I respect both views.
But where one person sees disrespect towards an artist's work, another sees consumers challenging a corporation's control over something they love. And because Western history contains examples of those challenges producing positive results, some Western consumers are more comfortable pushing those boundaries.
(Hope you can see how these points are relevant to old videogames like Tekken 6 that have no modern re-release/re-print)
ALSO I accept that sometimes piracy means consumers don't want to pay. They are just thieves. But other times, it means consumers were never given the opportunity to pay, and the solution will arise from pushing boundaries.
Please understand I'm not defending piracy. Just explaining why some Western consumers are willing to challenge copyright restrictions and not hate it so much.
We see things differently because history has shown us that sometimes, when people push back, everyone can end up way way way better off.
Sorry this was so long.
Syfri retweeted
Replying to @luckynosu
When you refuse to respect your opponent, ignore their actual arguments, and hide behind moral posturing, people stop being civil.
You aren't getting outrage bait because people "don't respect creators" You're getting it because you refused to engage in good faith from the start.
Syfri retweeted
何を言ってらっしゃる。小島監督なんか海外での方が「神扱い」ですよ。海外が嫌うのは「パブリッシャー」とかの、クリエイターと消費者の間の仲介者として存在する企業です。逆に日本人がそこら辺の区別が付いてないようにみれますが。
Replying to @44x1 @Wilde7even
You guys said that about people giving charity in the Fukushima disaster too. If someone sticks out it's seen as egoistic. That's why all you all can do in this argument and seek each other for validation and signal that you have the right opinion. It's cowardly.
But the thing is, it's not, and that's why you seethe. Never gets old seeing thr Japanese explain copyright to a westerner as if it was carved into the stone by God, when we invented it.
unavailable
Syfri retweeted
Marx’s own father eventually called him out for his constant desire to leech off of everyone around him.
There's an even funnier letter.
When Engels' wife died, Marx sent him a letter that barely acknowledged "Fred"'s loss in a single sentence before immediately jumping on to begging for money.
Engels got angry with him over it. 😆
Replying to @EndymionYT
Apologies for the long rant but I think I can shed some light on the industry to answer your question (from someone that spent a decade in it):
For starters, more often than not, it’s not because the devs are lazy, untalented, or stupid. It’s because the leadership is, and then some.
Risk aversion, huge egos, and outright obstruction tend to be why cool shit never makes it into these games and “easy to fix” issues don’t get resolved.
When I was a junior level designer, I have personally witnessed an ambitious environment artist take our game assets and simulate the design scenarios with the issues our designers were loudly trying to solve. The designers were in a cubicle next to the environment art team. He imported the assets into his own custom game engine/environment and created a working prototype.
“This proof of concept illustrates how we can avoid the hook shot line snapping whenever it’s attached line of sight is momentarily obstructed by any object between the grapple impact location and the falling player.”
The design leadership and senior designers resented the initiative because a lowly artist was able to do what they couldn’t and solved the problem with receipts.
The solution wasn’t implemented and the artist was demoralized, eventually leaving to start his own indie studio.
Another instance that really stuck out to me was when content designers at a different studio were forced to work with poor system designs. It was an MMO shooter being made by system designers that never worked on shooters before.
When content designers attempted to fix the issues and drafted up some more enjoyable content scenarios, the systems designers threw a fit because the play-testers in engineering and QA really enjoyed it more than the poorly designed, non-tweaked systems. The leads, trashed the suggested changes and we were all forced to make do with the bad system designs. This came after months of pleading with the system designers to address the glaring issues. Customers and reviewers would ultimately vindicate the content designers.
About a month after launch, when we were all laid off, I remember a quote that stuck with me:
“I should have known we were all about to be laid off because they finally allowed us to do what we were hired to do: make enjoyable combat encounters.”
The AAA industry has a leadership problem. This is why smaller teams and indie titles tend to be more enjoyable and innovative.
There aren’t too many incompetent leadership chefs in the kitchen — getting in everyone’s way.
Micromanagement is a sign of incompetent leadership and runs rampant in these studios.
This doesn't logically follow.
If the point is that we should not kill the wicked so that they have the longest time for their soul to be saved, then I should not prioritize my own life if my soul is saved and should instead be willing to be martyred rather than commit to any kind of self-defense.
And this idea that killing is a last resort is absurd when the most effective way to defend yourself is with a firearm shooting at center of mass. Perhaps I missed the part where you could fire into where core organs are located in a non-lethal manner? Stupid.
Replying to @TheOtherEnwerd
No, you're the Fucking Retard, Idiot. Self-Defence is another matter, and it is better to shoot at one's feet and wound even there. But if no other option is possible, yes it is permissible to kill, as a last resort. But once a Prisoner is COMPLETELY SUBJUGATED, and at our Mercy, only Merciless Fucking Retards like you kill him, because you are Bloodthirsty Darwinists and not True Christians with Compassion for Lost Souls.
"No Man's Sky built this in a cave, with a box of scraps!"
Replying to @DrawnOutYT
It wasn't impossible to do, it was a decision they made because it requires being seamless for all planets types. Here The loading is hidden by clouds which doesn't exist in a lot of locations, and they have consoles and PC builds to consider when it comes to these features.
Barbarism is how you keep yourself from becoming domesticated and weak. And executing murderers who slaughtered their own soldiers that trusted them is justice.
Replying to @AkkadSecretary
Callum and Carl lose me here. We don’t have to kill prisoners. You just /want/ to. You think it’ll do something for the soul of the nation or for the crime stats but it won’t heal them. It is brutality on brutality. You can respond with a firm, measured hand that isn’t barbaric.
Punishing murderers with execution who tooks oaths that they betrayed just so they could slaughter those under their command is good actually.
The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty
Syfri retweeted
It benefited boomers because they inherited the strongest economy in history which the previous generations paid for with blood and iron. The boomers then collectivized to hoard all of that for themselves, and used those skills and power gained from them to move jobs overseas and lower costs for themselves. Boomers cut pensions and most of the programs and practices that allowed them to succeed and then pulled up the ladder behind them. Of course all of this rhetoric and the idea that every man need only fend for themselves may sound principled, but it is nothing more than self-justification to alleviate the boomers of responsibility for the treason they have committed against their own people.
And it is not enough that you all have left the young unable to afford children, homes, and the ability to build a life for themselves. It is not enough that the young must compete with large numbers of migrants and outsourced labor driving their wages and ability to even find employment down. It is not enough that the boomer destroyed trust in the sexual market with their rampant acts of degeneracy and belief in laissez-faire sexual behavior and marriage. Even now, after all of this, you wish to seize the little remaining for the next generations to fund your insipid welfare schemes. Things like social security for which I and my children and even my parents will never see a dime of.
You have no moral leg to stand on. You are evil. All your defense of selfishness amounts to a shallow imitation of American self-reliance your parents tried to teach you, from which you desired only the esteem and dignity and never the sacrifice.

























