Re: Dynasty Warriors 9 Update V1 07-CODEX Hack Tool Download
Casandro Diveley
The fragility thesis is flat wrong. There is absolutely no reason to think that Western civilization is more fragile than Asian civilization, Islamic civilization, or any other prominent rivals. At minimum, Western civilization can and does perpetuate itself the standard way: sheer conformity and status quo bias.
I am pretty sure there was, at one point, such a thing as western civilization. I think it included things like dancing around maypoles and copying Latin manuscripts. At some point Thor might have been involved. That civilization is dead. It summoned an alien entity from beyond the void which devoured its summoner and is proceeding to eat the rest of the world.
Let me say again that this universal culture, though it started in the West, was western only in the most cosmetic ways. If China or the Caliphate had industrialized first, they would have been the ones who developed it, and it would have been much the same. The new sodas and medicines and gender norms invented in Beijing or Baghdad would have spread throughout the world, and they would have looked very familiar. The best way to industrialize is the best way to industrialize.
I think universal culture has done a really good job adapting to this through a strategy of social atomization; everybody does their own thing in their own home, and the community exists to protect them and perform some lowest common denominator functions that everyone can agree on. This is a really good way to run a multicultural society without causing any conflict, but it requires a very specific set of cultural norms and social technologies to work properly, and only universal culture has developed these enough to pull it off.
Because universal culture is better at dealing with multicultural societies, the more immigrants there are, the more likely everyone will just default to universal culture in public spaces. And eventually the public space will creep further and further until universal culture becomes the norm.
Overall I am not 100% convinced either way. Maybe some traditional cultures are worse than universal culture and others are better? Mostly the confusion makes me want to err on the side of allowing people to go either direction as they see fit, barring atrocities. Which are of course hard to define.
China did invent cannon and handheld firearms starting around the late Song dynasty. But once Europe got gunpowder, the development of Western firearms and artillery certainly lapped them and stayed in front for quite a long while.
Not so simple. Delaware is north and east of the Mason-Dixon line. Annapolis (the capitol of Maryland) was occupied by Federal troops. The legislature was then convened in Frederick. When they met for their second session there, the Feds went in and arrested the legislature. So you could fairly consider Maryland to be occupied territory rather than Northern.
Plenty of non-Western cultures developed methods of refrigeration based either on evaporation of water or melting ice. The Persians have been eating faloodeh, which requires refrigeration to make it, for centuries if not millennia.
Other countries and cultures have their own sweet drinks that arguably taste better. Hell America has plenty of sweet drinks that objectively taste better. Most countries also have the capability to produce their own, local, Coca Cola knockoffs, and they do, but the knockoffs are not as popular as Coca Cola.
This is an important point. I should make this into a separate post, but I think some of modern American politics is best explained by failing to see the other side as a threat anymore because our bubble makes them seem as distant and bizarre as ISIS or North Korea. I think this explains why so much of the interesting debate these days is within tribes, eg between Sanders-style leftists and Hillary-style neoliberals, or between Romney-style technocrats and Cruz-style Tea Partiers and Trump-style nationalists. Does this sound plausible to anybody?
White Christian fundamentalist Right Wingers are a severe and powerful threat to those of us who believe in science and in human caused climate change, to LGBTQ people, and to many other groups of people.
>White Christian fundamentalist Right Wingers are a severe and powerful threat to those of us who believe in science and in human caused climate change, to LGBTQ people, and to many other groups of people.
Most people with strong views on politics view their fellow tribesmen as the former and the other tribe as the latter. They consider it absolutely good to label the other side as the Devil, because they are quite certain the other side IS the Devil and we cannot afford to let anyone get mixed up about this.
Another key factor is that while India is only halfway western, the top brass of indian society is highly western educated and definetly western influenced. From the upper middle class and up we have the egalitarian gender norms, coke, and other things characteristic of american culture. Hell at my school in india we even used soccer to refer to what most indians refer to as football. Having relationships in high school was common. So the generation of indias future leaders will be strongly western friendly since they mostly tend to be from my social class and up. And all of grew up with American cultural norms.
Strictly ethnic. American born Chinese that can speak Mandarin can write their own ticket in China. This is in pretty strong contrast to the Japanese who discriminate strongly against e.g. Brazilian born ethnically Japanese people.
Many settlers had excellent relations with indians, for example the quakers of Pennsylvania and Delaware and in all areas there was more peace and trade then war. Often behind indians wars there was a colonial power.
5b. It is an unbreakable rule, as far as I can tell, that if an American TV series or movie portrays a competition between a likable man and a likable woman, the woman must win. (Every time I have tested this, my prediction that the woman will win has proven correct.)
My point is that in all other cases we can objectively compare a Western value to its alternatives (excites more taste receptors / kills more bacteria / has a lower chance of collapsing / etc.); but, in the case of gender norms, this does not appear to be possible. So, gender norms are the odd man out in this example (pun intended).
Egalitarian Gender norms are more conducive to the levels of reproduction needed in a modern technological society with extremely low levels of infant mortality, increasingly long life spans and intensive resource consumption by the individual members of that society.
In time, the fertility of such societies tends to drop, and the population finds itself replaced by more fecund peoples, who generally have much less enlightened views about the role of women. In their more violent and less urban culture, men have higher status as providers and protectors. The cycle begins anew.
You can roughly visualize the spread of the universal culture by looking at the decline of fertility rates across nations, though some of the lowest fertility rates seem to be in places where the universal culture has much more influence over singles than married couples and families, e.g. northeast Asia.
Today, nearly all societies are experiencing a drop in fertility, so it is entirely plausible (though uncertain) that the current generation of threats are no match for the universal culture. But Gnon/Moloch will keep searching.
From the early modern age through the 19th century, advanced societies saw higher population growth than more primitive societies (which in the New World, at least, declined in population). This explains the existence of large European populations in places like the Americas, Australia, and Siberia, and probably at least partly explains the success of colonial efforts in places like Africa and India.
And they could work their way in via either unassimilated immigrant cultures or local cultures that have developed a sufficiently strong genetic + memetic basis for population growth and resistance to assimilation, the Haredim being the most visible near-term example, but it might even be the case in the partial de-secularization of Turkey, for example.
Women were obliged to have intercourse with their husbands unless there was some good reason not to, but there was a similar, although weaker, requirement on the husband. And, of course, women had essentially the same obligation in western culture until quite recently, with marriage counting as consent.
Slavery is probably not the correct term, but the ancient Jewish legal system treated the process of marriage as analogous to the man acquiring a piece of property. Even today, the Hebrew word for husband is the same as the word for owner.
Gay marriage did not have majority approval in the US prior to US vs Windsor and Obergefell vs Hodges, generally having failed to have been passed by legislatures, overriden by veto when it was, and failing to win any referendums. FFS, it even lost when put to referendum in California. Gay marriage in the US is a shining example of the law forcing a societal change, as most everyone learned to sit down and shut up in the wake of aggressive State action against people who voiced displeasure with gay marriage wherever it could.
Is this seriously a surprise to you? Genuflecting before the superiority of women is pretty much a requirement for certain circles. How much is genuine self-loathing, and how much is just shameless virtue signaling, is up for debate.
This is a very strange interpretation. First Marge is presented with 3 other suitors that I can recall from the early seasons when character development was ongoing. Her bowling coach, Artie the implied rapist, and Moe, while Homer is presented with a beautiful and about to be wildly successful country singer, and a hot co worker.
Homer is an overweight, lazy, bald buffoon who (in most episodes) makes a good living and comes home in time for dinner. If Marge wants something he usually tries to do it, though being a buffoon he usually fails.
7fc3f7cf58