@AceTKen@lemmy.ca
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

AceTKen

@AceTKen@lemmy.ca

I advocate for logical and consistent viewpoints on controversial topics. If you’re looking at my profile, I’ve probably made you mad by doing so.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Literally nobody in the public voted for her in the first term at least.

Edit: WTF, Lemmy. I’m factually correct. Look at her Wikipedia page if you don’t believe me.

She was appointed when Jason Kenney resigned. She won in the second term, not the first term. In the first term, the public was not given a chance to vote for her or not.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Nope. Originally her party was elected when somebody else was at the helm, and then when Jason Kenney retired, she was just kind of put there.

Literally no one in the public voted for her originally.

I’m in Alberta but I vote NDP.

Before he left, Kenney was actually warning that the crazies were trying to take over. Hell, we thought Kenney was crazy. Turns out he was right about this one thing.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

As someone who runs a community, the ability to disable downvotes and have more customization within that Community would help a great deal.

I also wouldn’t mind the ability to post something like a Delta on a comment to show a changed view or something.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

As someone who started and is extremely active in a small community, I find Lemmy actively hostile to the point where I’m considering closing up after less than a month.

The number of indignant replies and comment-free downvotes we get inundated with continually is… disheartening.

People want content, but actively detract from any content that doesn’t cater to them. It’s hard to take.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Oh man… you’re basically speaking directly to why I made our small community (consider this a personal invite). As I said elsewhere, I find Lemmy actively hostile.

The number of indignant replies and comment-free downvotes we get inundated with continually is… disheartening.

People want content, but actively detract from any content that doesn’t explicitly cater to them. It’s hard to take.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Oh man… you’re speaking directly to why I made Actual Discussion (consider this a personal invite).

We frequently get one-time posters coming in and flaming (or downvoting without reading) on any thread that may not agree with them, then when challenged with sources, they vanish. It’s brutal. I wish we could disable certain behaviours on our instance or in the Community itself.

(WEEKLY) Capitalism / Economic Systems (lemmy.ca)

Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!...

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

I don’t believe that Capitalism is inherently evil, which I feel puts me at odds with much of the Lemmy userbase. They tend to rail against it, from what I’ve seen.

To my mind, however, capitalism is not the problem - human greed and power-mongering is the problem. Just like in systems that we have seen with communism (or what passes for it in real-world terms), greed corrupts every system that it is allowed to be a part of. Every single economic system from anarchy to feudalism can be massively corrupted by those in positions of power if there are not explicit and extremely punitive regulations in place to stop them from doing so. Those organizations that watch and manage those regulations should not be subject to lobbying, gifts, or industry work at any point after their term is complete.

We need income caps on the highest and minimums on the lowest in society. We need to remove external corporate shareholders. We need to penalize mon- du- and tri-opolies by allowing patent access to competitors in the same country.

I feel that we should absolutely reward those who excel, however excelling at corrupting or breaking systems and the public trust should be punished more harshly than nearly any other crime. If the power to corrupt grows, then the punishment for doing so should as well.

Any new system must be implemented with not simply laws laid out, but checks and balances built in to stop those that would seek to subvert things. And not simply “the letter of the law” like we have now, but also “the spirit of the law” to know if someone is just trying to work a loophole. This involves describing what the law is intended to do in plain wording that can be interpreted by laymen (because there’s no reason you should need a degree to know if you’re breaking a law).

To sum things up, capitalism isn’t evil. It can work just like any system if you have the proper framework around it. I don’t believe the form we have now in North America is the best system, however. Not by a long shot.

Simply swapping in a new system doesn’t fix simple human greed.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

I am the C.E.O. of an I.T. firm I’ve created. The employees once they are here for a certain amount of time become shareholders and I am purposely the lowest-paid employee at my company. I do not take dividends.

We also have a “No Outside Shareholders” policy, so if an employee shareholder ever left (not that any have in the 8 years we’ve been running as we treat our people like gold) the company maintains a reserve of money to purchase shares for their current value. Current value is arrived at by getting a quick valuation done.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Hrm. I don’t know if I agree. I am the C.E.O. (and an Economist) of a medium-sized I.T. firm in Canada and designed the company to be as ethical as it could possibly be from the ground up.

  1. All employees have equal votes after their initial 3 months is up in any part of the company that they are engaged in. I can (and have) been outvoted.
  2. After employees are here long enough (3 years), they can purchase shares if they like.
  3. I am the lowest paid full-time employee at the company by design. I do not take dividends.
  4. We operate on a Matrix org chart meaning that the “boss” on every project changes based on who is best suited to lead it and who has experience in that area.
  5. We have it in our charter that there are never any outside shareholders allowed. If you leave the company, your shares are purchased by the company for current market value. This includes myself.
  6. We have acquired other companies. We have never had to pay for one. Our procedures and ticket counts are astronomically low compared with other I.T. companies (which are called MSPs) because we’re exceptionally thorough that they literally give themselves to us.
  7. We are as environmentally conscious as we can be. We redo and donate old systems to nonprofits and schools where we can. The only waste we put out is literally dead hardware - no forced upgrade cycle. Electricity bills also drop dramatically at clients we take over due to more efficient machine use.
  8. During COVID, we gave away over $500k in free support. I figured it was more important that our nonprofit clients stay open than we stay open.
  9. We have a full FOSS stack that we can deploy if a company is open to it (and would like to save a bit of cash to boot).
  10. In nearly ten years, we’ve never had an employee leave, and never had a client leave (well, we had one restaurant client close during COVID, but I don’t count that).
  11. We have full benefits.
  12. We have zero interest in “infinite growth” as it’s not a functional model. We have turned down clients because they don’t “get” us and would be a headache for our staff.

All that being said, I’m not bragging, I’m genuinely asking… what if other companies were run the way I run my company? What’s the ethical issue? And no, this isn’t theoretical, this is how we actually operate. There’s no hidden evil.

I understand that not every business owner is “good.” With proper regulation, however, we can make them at least behave way, way the fuck better. It’s a form of Social Capitalism and it’s exceedingly functional from my experience.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

That or take risks. That’s actually one of the reasons I feel that the reward system needs to be in place, personally.

It doesn’t need to be as massive or horrible as it is now (I still don’t feel we need billionaires to exist), but see here for how I carry out my company while still keeping rewards intact.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Which I understand. It’s why I called the company a “firm” as I feel it’s a more accurate descriptor. The main difference is that we don’t let employees just starting their trial period vote or lead a team yet until they get a feel for how we operate. We’re quite a large swing from what normal companies do and it takes time to adjust and understand, not to mention that our processes are a complete rethink of how it is anywhere else.

The shares can be sold to other shareholders, but not to anyone outside the company. Unlike most corporations, we don’t want solely financially invested shareholders as they’re in business to extract value. They are parasites.

I’ve built this model out in hopes it will catch on. I feel that if most companies operated under Social Capitalism that we’d be substantially better off. Certain aspects of it are so important and such a step up from the norm that I don’t understand how they weren’t obvious to other owners. But… greed I guess. Greed hurts every system it’s in.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

I can scale without issue most times and have done so multiple times during acquisitions.

Once we hit a certain number of people, I’d make the Matrix org system a little more fleshed-out. Right now our projects are from 1-10 people, but it wouldn’t be hard to add an org-wide Scheduler role that can wrangle interested groups for projects. It’s all about putting a plan into place before you make a decision, not deciding and then trying to FORCE things to fit. With Microsoft, I imagine they’d have to implement larger teams of relevant staff on each project and divide them into overall pods with the Scheduler able to change who is needed in each pod. It’s doable, but without having been anywhere near that large, I’d have to see what was implemented along the way.

Also of interest, we don’t have an issue with The Peter Principle as you’re never forced to move out of a position of competence or interest. You’re not salary limited simply because you don’t want to be a manager; in fact, there are no managers.

(ARTICLE) Racism In D&D (www.polygon.com)

Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion). You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!...

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

So with you treating others as individuals, are you stating that you frequently still have racist thoughts and ideas then? Or perhaps are those groups still expressing racist ideas treating the groups they oppose as a group and not individuals?

In my main response to the article, I was referring (I thought quite clearly) to those ideas in produced media and on a global scale such as D&D.

For a functional proof, see how media historically treated the Irish or the Polish. Racism against those two groups is mostly dead because it became essentially ignored. Although I’m sure you can find some minor modern examples, it’s more of a cultural oddity than a problem at this stage. Are you able to articulate why this occurred (as well as other examples through history) so that it tracks with what you’ve stated above?

Individualism is the only viable solution to racism that I have ever seen. Every other solution I have seen proposed doesn’t deal with the reality of the world, and instead relies on how we wish things were and discards other opinions as invalid, but keeps our opinion as true (which is deeply condescending). Instead, ALL opinion is invalid for requiring change. It’s the only viable way to find things objectively true and progress things in a logical fashion.

I am not proud of my background, it’s simply how I arrived here. It’s part of me, but does not in any way define me. I do not celebrate it, but I acknowledge it. If you think I should behave in any way because of a perceived group membership, you are wrong. I am an individual and so is everyone else.

We can not, however, force people to only think good things about the groups they may see us as belonging to. That is not an achievable or enforceable goal. The realistic way this horrible thinking dies is simply… removing any presupposition entirely.

It’s the same with many partisan political issues, and it’s the reason they won’t be solved until looked at with a utilitarian lens; again, opinion causes strife and knowledge defeats opinion.

Do you have a functional example of why you would be correct and why my way would be worse?

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

“There’re” was never used in my original writing.

One apostrophe was misplaced in the original due to the phone I was writing on and has been fixed.

And hey, as long as we’re being smug and missing the point entirely, I don’t know if you know this, but the words “little” and “blue” aren’t one word like in your user name and there’s supposed to be a space there.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Did they? That’s odd. Gygax said they were intended to be trolls as even the name “Drow” is a Scottish word for the same.

The Drow are grey-purple (or pitch black if you’re talking about the originals) and their entire lore is completely different. I don’t really see that parallels at all. Other than skin colour mentioned, what does that have to do with the Curse of Ham?

(An aside: I ran a campaign with all players playing Drow where all were Lawful Good because they were deemed so by Drow societal laws. It was fun and put everyone in an odd headspace for that game.)

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

I agree that the source material was to have some negative actions carried out by NPC races, but I disagree that they were intended to be analogous to real world racial stereotypes. I think they were intended to be well-trod archetypes assigned to random fantasy groups, not real-world racial stand-ins (with the potential exception of the Vistani, but I would argue that the Romani aren’t a “race” and are more defined by their self-grouping than anything else - it’s not like you could point one out in a diverse crowd of people).

If you’re making enemies for a game you’re creating, you’re going to want to give them “bad” traits. Greedy, destructive, thieving, conniving, power-mad… Doesn’t matter as long as they are things considered near-universally bad.

At some point in history, nearly every “bad” trait you could name has been associated with a race by someone being racist. I think we agree on this point.

This relates to D&D because there was (for the most part) no real-world racial intent originally, only intent that people read into because they had internalized racist thoughts about groups they belonged to and then assumed the author did as well.

That’s why my examples above are what they are. If someone perceives negative racial intent where there is none, it is irrelevant. As a DM, since day one, you are also given the power to make any race or character into whatever you wish. Want to make bright white drow that are super good and live inside the sun? Go hard. It’s not baked in to the game.

Originally, the only thing that these tropes for these fantasy races apply to is ONE group in ONE planet in ONE plane. Don’t use that plane. Problem solved. They were there to give you a place to start with some interesting lore and that’s all. You were never limited to this.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

I appreciate your reply, and I’ve responded to the potential racism elsewhere in this thread and don’t simply want to tread old ground, so I’ll go on a bit of a tangent about the comfort and lack of offence of the players.

From a psychological standpoint, humans are worse-off being comfortable all the time - doubly so in fantasy. There is no positive benefit. Immersion, confrontation, and understanding are more important (there are scads of journal articles about how it actually makes things worse mentally) than trying to enforce that everyone never offends anyone. Because offence is an opinion. Anyone can choose to be offended by quite literally anything, and if literally everything can potentially be offensive, then nothing is.

Think about the inverse though - if you can not be offended by anything, you’ve taken a massive amount of power away from racists. You’ve taken their largest weapon and completely disarmed them. If you do the opposite of the above however, you’ve handed them taboos they can instantly and easily use on you. You figuratively load their clip for them, point it at someone they hate, and ask them politely not to use it.

All WotC has succeeded in doing is stripping the lore from one of an infinite number of world backgrounds and given time-strapped people fewer easy bases for their own campaigns. Congrats to them I guess? They can be lazier in the name of understanding while accomplishing next to nothing positive, but hey, at least players won’t have to challenge themselves or their biases.

Are you able to articulate a functional benefit to the players from them removing scads of lore?

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Your insulting and infantile trolling isn’t welcome here. Go make some other Community worse because you are not welcome in this one.

AceTKen, (edited )
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

(For reference, I ask questions at the end of many sections to give you easy things to change my view with and thus counter me, not to be leading or an asshole)

You seem to be confusing the offence for what changed things. Large-scale action changed things in the scenarios you described. Offence may have helped trigger the actions, but did nothing in and of itself. If I hate the colour pink and I see you wear a pink shirt, is my offence going to help change things? No, it’s just mindless complaining. Action will change things.

Offence without action is worthless, however action without offence can still very much change things.

Offence is one ingredient of a MUCH larger recipe, but it accomplishes little by itself. Offence is personal. As such, it’s no more effective at dictating what the public should do that your personal religious beliefs.

Are you able to show cases where offence without action caused major change? Are you able to articulate why personal offence would be a positive thing to dictate policy with?

having someone deal with similar negative shit they deal with in real life while playing a game is not good

Objectively, yes, it absolutely can be. There’s a reason that one of the most effective forms of therapy is Exposure and Response Prevention. It helps combat all sorts of phobias, anxieties, OCD, and prejudices. My wife is a therapist and uses it often to help clients.

Using it in a semi-gamified setting is valuable and they’ve been using it in full-VR environments to great effect lately with MASSIVE help towards phobias. I would even argue that people removing themselves from things that make them uncomfortable is one of the major contributors to the mess we find ourselves in now where anxiety is at an all-time high and everyone has scads of self-diagnosed issues.

That being said, would I bring sexual assault out at my table if a player has requested I don’t? No, because that would be a dick move.

But also, would I bring a bunch of players together who wanted to play a full 1-20 campaign and let someone with agoraphobia dictate that the party and storyline stay strictly indoors the entire time? Also no. Putting yourself into a scenario and limiting everyone else because of your personal issues is also a dick move, especially when all aspects of it from villains to victims are imaginary to begin with.

Are you able to show that people are psychologically better off avoiding things?

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Been playing since I was 13, so just for reference, I’ve never seen a Drow that looked like a fish. They’re basically just purple-grey or black-skinned Elves with white hair. They are often portrayed as in shape, and extremely attractive. They are matriarchal and were considered “evil” because of their worship of Lolth.

(More info: Even Yveette Nicole Brown doesn’t agree with the decision to pull that episode of Community.)

I don’t think I’ve seen any traits associated with them that are also associated by racists to be “like black people” other than the use of the word “black.” I’d also state that they are black in such a way that humans are not. There is no trace of brown in their skin and never has been in any official material I’ve ever seen.

Good and evil for alignment was usually associated with the place the characters come from, at least in every campaign I ever ran or participated in. I had Lawful Good Barbarian who murdered and pillaged villages because that’s what Good was to him. It’s relative. I said it elsewhere, but I ran a campaign with all players playing Drow where all were Lawful Good because they were deemed so by Drow societal laws. It was fun and put everyone in an odd headspace for that game.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

Not a problem! I can understand why you feel the way you do. I also can argue forcefully and it puts people off.

These are always my favourite conversations on here. We both say our piece and shake hands and be done with it. This is why I made this Community in the first place.

I think these Actual Conversations ™ are legitimately important to remember in these polarized times that just because someone disagrees, doesn’t mean they’re an irredeemable and uneducated asshole. Sometimes two well-spoken people just disagree and that’s okay.

I appreciate you engaging with me on this!

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

There would be no way for them to gain that knowledge. I could believe that they potentially lost their primary language and spoke a mild amount of other languages that they had picked up by osmosis…

But I am doubtful that they would be able to have a full conversation with a native speaker.

There’s no way the human brain could just conjure up a fully functioning secondary language that the person had no exposure to.

AceTKen,
@AceTKen@lemmy.ca avatar

despite that being a dictionary definition of bigotry

Well, here is the dictionary definition of bigotry.

It fits both Alito and anyone who dislikes his views. I wasn’t aware the definition was so broad but it basically applies to everyone who dislikes anyone else’s view on anything.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • thenastyranch
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • lostlight
  • rhentai
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • InstantRegret
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • relationshipadvice
  • HellsKitchen
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines