Frank

I actually don't know. Are King Giddorah's heads separate individuals?

Do we have a Godzilla knower here?

I used to play large scale milsim games and you could always tell when someone was new because they'd do that. And then the established players would snap out "Infantry patrol, 12 guys, light weapons, heading 120, 350m, moving right to left. squadlead should we engage? Over."

And thennnnnnn someone would start playing goat noises over the command channel....

We didn't use actual military comms protocols, but a very simplified versions with the same basic idea - Make it clear who is talking and who they are trying to speak to. State your message in a format that's readable and reasonably standardized. Indicate when you're done speaking and the channel is clear. Then shut up!"

Probably the two most common sends were someone yelling "Open mic! Open mic!" when someone was blaring static or eating cereal directly in to the mic, and leaders yelling "check! Check!" over and over to try to get people to stop shitposting on main and clear the channel so the leaders could say something important. I think it was equivalent to tapping the squelch button.

It worked pretty well for years but as numbers in the group fell off and hte people who remained were more interested in action movie stuff than milsim our discipline went to hell and comms followed, turning in to a semi-usable mess.

Agreed. Vesting Helltaker with any responsibility over the site would be a gross violation of community trust.

I'm heading to bed but I want to bring up some lines from my boy Sun Tzu that I think can clarify my position and why I find this very concerning, but also why moderation is important and valuable.

If soldiers are punished before they have grown attached to you, they will not prove submissive; and, unless submissive, then will be practically useless. If, when the soldiers have become attached to you, punishments are not enforced, they will still be useless.

Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline.

This is a certain road to victory.

If in training soldiers commands are habitually enforced, the army will be well-disciplined; if not, its discipline will be bad.

If a general shows confidence in his men but always insists on his orders being obeyed,

the gain will be mutual.

So, in this passage, he's saying that discipline requires trust. If you try to discipline people who don't trust you they'll just leave, or otherwise resist. On the other hand, if you have built trust, people will accept discipline because they know you and trust that you're using discipline as a tool that's beneficial for everyone. People will accept a chastisement or correction from a leader if they believe in that leader. Even if they think the leader is incorrect they may accept the correction for the good of the whole group, or out of deference knowing that leaders sometimes have to act from imperfect knowledge.

And once you do have people's trust, discipline has to be enforced consistently. If the discipline isn't consistent in when and how it's applied people will not take it seriously. If they know they won't be corrected when they have erred they will not pay attention to their errors. However, if they believe they will be corrected when they have not erred they will begin to see errors where there are none for fear of unjust punishment.

So, when Sun Tzu says that soldiers must be treated with humanity, he's saying that corrections must be just, consistent, and fair. But he also says that iron discipline is needed. Corrections must be applied in a consistent manner over time and across places. That way, everyone will know that they must always consider their actions, and in doing so they will cultivate discipline in themselves.

"Habitually" is an important word choice by the translator as habits are things we do without having to think about them. This can be a positive form of self-discipline. If discipline becomes habit then when a person errs they will likely recognize their error without needing to be told. If they do not, then their comrades may notice their error and can correct them at that moment. If discipline is very consistently applied over time it will become self-reinforcing within the community. Individuals will discipline themselves and when they err their comrades will correct them. There will be less need for correction directly from leadership.

The last line shows the importance of the lesson, which is; An organization does not consist of it's leadership only, nor of it's rank and file only. Both are important and their roles depend on each other. Leadership must set the example and offer correction where needed. The rank and file must adhere to discipline to maintain cohesion and create a group that can trust one another and work effectively together. If the leadership has the trust of the rank and file then the orders of the leadership will be carried out consistently. If the rank and file have the trust of the leadership then the leadership can confidently give instructions knowing that the rank and file will carry them out to the best of their ability. But this relationship is built on a foundation of mutual trust. Each must believe that the other is reliable and acting in good faith. Each must believe that the other is acting for the benefit of the group. The relation between leadership and rank and file is a discussion and a dialogue. When that discussion is built on trust the dialogue is effective and the strengths of the group will be realized. But if there is not trust then the dialogue will be disruptive and the group will be weakened. So it is very important to guard trust, to protect it with consistency, habit, and transparency.

I continually turn to Sun Tzu because the Art of War isn't really about warfare, but about managing conflicts of all kinds, and Sun Tzu's overarching goal and message is that one should seek to mediate conflict so that war is prevented whenever possible.

Nothing that bites you should be smaller than two feet long. I feel like that's the minimum size for being able to really fight something. If something wants to bite you it should be fighting size.

Shibboleth would be one applicable term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

I've been thinking and discussing this a lot and mostly using "in-group signalling", which is clunky but I think that's mostly what it's called in Anthropology.

I guess with GOP specifically we use "Owning the libs" as a catch all for when fash take a position they don't necessarily believe in because they think it will aggravate Democrats.

first

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS THE DRAGON OF BUDAPEST!

It's a shame he's not actually funny or interesting in any way in real life. : (

I'm not sure how to call this. It could be a rebuttal to the notion that nerdy men are incels or something. Like, the context it was originally posted in would be necessary to determine authorial intent. But it's definitely trying to be some kind of satire, I just don't know what it's satirizing.

Yeah I'm going to do a little racism and say this sounds super fucking German.

idk. Apparently the popular vote ended up being quite close so I'd venture to say there was no deciding factor and Killemall needed every one of the votes she set on fire.

Yeah it looks like the final call had Harris down by 2.5 million or so, 50% to 48.4%. So, any issue that alienated or discouraged people, even if it wasn't deciding for people, likely played a factor.

Yeah, I broadly agree. I would phrase it as outside of their hobbies, interests, and work a lot of people don't have a lot of general knowledge and don't have any strong feelings about things they do know.