Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

How rich is Chris Avellone?

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
His theories were correct, at least anything connected to what he got from studying neoplatonism. His scientific theories were most certainly bonkers, but that's the least interesting part of his writings.

Male and female are two metaphysical archetypes and most human beings fall between those two poles, to different degrees. The problem with SJWs is that they don't understand that there IS such a thing as a masculine and feminine, but those two ideals exist in an absolute state only at the "formal" level, in the Platonic sense, which SJWs can't perceive due to their inability to grasp metaphysical concepts and principles. They do not perceive the metaphysical reality of masculinity and femininity, they just see that some people are more feminine than others and vice versa and they reason that sex is relative and gender is a construct.


Yes, an obviously gay man whose only notable act is killing himself in Beethoven's home. A man who didn't have a problem with women. Imagining some kind of absolute Man and Woman (as Ideas in the Platonic sense, a thing even Aristotle disagrees with) that confirm his, and by extension your, biases and claiming it metaphysical and thus true is bonkers.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,161
Weininger succumbed to the darkness of his age, precisely because people of his type cannot but see the relativity of things, so there's only two alternatives for them. Go upwards, towards the transcendent, or go downwards, towards the dark underbelly of manifestation. I suppose Weininger succumbed to the latter.

Doesn't mean he was wrong in what he believed, or that at any rate his central thesis was incorrect, and while i doubt Aristotle disagreed what you say he disagreed with Plato, to the degree that he did, i would put Plato above Aristotle any time.

There is no such thing as a fully (I.E., absolutely) "masculine" man, or a fully "feminine" woman. There cannot be, not at the level of relative manifestation. And that people are on a spectrum between those two poles is just undeniable. No way you gonna tell me there aren't "feminine" men or "masculine" women out there.

Seriously, don't make me whip out evil.pdf now.
 
Last edited:

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
There isn't a "fully masculine" man or "fully feminine" woman because there is no definition of masculine or feminine in the sense that you are implying. There are as many masculinities and femininities as there are cultures. Imagining Man as rationality, morality, objectivity, and Woman as amorality, subjectivity and total passivity, and proclaiming them objectively masculine and feminine is such an insane idea, built on countless biases, assumptions and shaky foundations, I don't know how you can subscribe to it. Don't you see how illogical it is? It's bad science.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,161
A man who didn't have a problem with women.

Ho shit, i missed this.

But i think this is pertinent to the discussion.

Weininger had an issue with women because he believed a lack of metaphysical understanding, which is characteristic of femininity, implied a lack of divinity. When he said that women are incapable of understanding the "angel" in man, he was correct. They can't. The I is masculine, and perception of the Good at the level of the individuality is also masculine (which is why there can never be and never has been a female genius). Women are for the most part subjective creatures for whom only the "me" exists which is why for them everything is subjective and relative. SWJing is essentially feminine in principle, and Weinigner hated women to the degree he believed they possessed no other nature than this.

What he failed to understand is that femininity is also an expression of the Good, it just operates on a different level. Apropos:

http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/fem-eternel-engl.htm

Or maybe he was just an angry incel lmao.

There isn't a "fully masculine" man or "fully feminine" woman because there is no definition of masculine or feminine in the sense that you are implying. There are as many masculinities and femininities as there are cultures. Imagining Man as rationality, morality, objectivity, and Woman as amorality, subjectivity and total passivity, and proclaiming them objectively masculine and feminine is such an insane idea, built on countless biases, assumptions and shaky foundations, I don't know how you can subscribe to it. Don't you see how illogical it is? It's bad science.

Relativitardism detected. Guess you belong to the feminine spectrum.

As for "science", i'm gonna have to pull out nominalism.mp4 here:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x27d5ku

Every argument with you modern fags always point to the same errors.
 
Last edited:

Shin

Cipher
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
677
So much clueless assumptions around here about Chris. THINK people; he's the most legendary RPG designer alive.

Dude is obviously rich as fuck since he's been picking up all kinds of objects throughout his life, filling up his inventory and bartering it for bricks of gold.
Also he's totally pansexual; not saying he fucks trannies all the time but HE COULD if he fucking wanted. And heck even if he was caught on camera with one he'd fucking deal with the fallout. C&C? duh
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
Relativitardism detected. Guess you belong to the feminine spectrum.

As for "science", i'm gonna have to pull out nominalism.mp4 here:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x27d5ku

Every argument with you modern fags always point to the same errors.

I am more a man than you'll ever be, you can trust me on that. Whatever dear little Otto believed because he was gay and angsty over that is transparent and isn't worth a second thought. Your assumptions and biases are also transparent. Nobody has ever claimed everything is subjective, least of all I, the problem is that you assume things, claim they are objective (and metaphysical Ideas), and then try to force reality to conform. That is what bad science, and even philosophy, looks like and you are the feminine in Otto's world.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
Frankly I'm only curious about his workout routines, since he's someone who spends a lot of time sitting down I think maybe he has tried doing specific exercises.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,161
Relativitardism detected. Guess you belong to the feminine spectrum.

As for "science", i'm gonna have to pull out nominalism.mp4 here:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x27d5ku

Every argument with you modern fags always point to the same errors.

I am more a man than you'll ever be, you can trust me on that. Whatever dear little Otto believed because he was gay and angsty over that is transparent and isn't worth a second thought. Your assumptions and biases are also transparent. Nobody has ever claimed everything is subjective, least of all I, the problem is that you assume things, claim they are objective (and metaphysical Ideas), and then try to force reality to conform. That is what bad science, and even philosophy, looks like and you are the feminine in Otto's world.

Not everything is subjective, just what we define as masculine and feminine, amirite?

But i'm just getting the sense you are pissed at Weininger because he hated women more than anything else. Would that be correct?

Because let's talk about women for a second. Is it JUST an amazing coincidence that the traits Weininger ascribed to them have become the dominant traits of modern society even as the latter has become more and more feminized or am i just seeing things?

I mean, doesn't it seem like the big problem with SJWs is that they can't see the "angel" in anything?
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,161
BTW, i have an actual good explanation with what is happening with cucks who support this SJW nonsense. Femininity is an expression of universal substance, which in its state of purity represents an aspect of the Good no less than the creative energy that characterizes the masculine. In fact, this aspect of purity, and the metaphysical reality which this represents, is necessary for all true intellectuality. This is why the muses of the Greeks were female. It's why Dante relied on Beatrice as his guide through his spiritual ascension. It is the "angel" in universal femininity that is the inspiration of all great art and all great thinkers. In Sufism, it is the Virgin Mary who represents the guiding principle, since Sufism is an intellectual path. And in Christian esoterism, Christ is the result of the spirit of the Father refracting through the prism of universal purity which is the Virgin Mary, and thus Logos, the Word of God and highest expression of Being is her child.

So now, what happens when you have a group of people, mainly men, who can perceive the metaphysical aspect of universal femininity, but project what they are perceiving to individual women instead? The result is subjugation to the subjective "gender" and the one that possesses no metaphysical perception, and subjugation eventually gives way to identification, so that the men eventually end up adopting the same point of view as women. And this is where soy boys come from (to the degree they aren't just cursed with a female brain to begin with, which is certainly common).

Let me put this in another way. There is this old metaphysical formula which says that men are beautiful because of their intelligence, while women are intelligent by means of their beauty. What happens with cucks is that they end up associating intelligence with feminine beauty alone, and are completely oblivious to the fact feminine "intellectuality" is actually devoid of all intelligence.
 
Last edited:

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
Not what we define as masculine and feminine, but what we define masculine and feminine as. And I wouldn't say it's subjective, it's intersubjective. No one person can in isolation be feminine or masculine, it requires an Other who you identify yourself in relation to. Some claim m/f is performative and imitative, others as a power dynamic between men wanting to control women's reproductive capabilities, others as a psychological state, others as a biological principle of xx and xy chromosomes or motile and immotile gametes, and others still as metaphysical Ideas. The problem is when we ask the question "but what IS masculinity and femininity really?" and found out that it requires that question to be put into context. You won't find out who cares for the children or who forcefully bleeds their noses as a symbolic transformation to manhood by peering into biology and citing xx and xy chromosomes.

I'm not pissed at Weininger because he hated women, I couldn't care less, I care that his ideas are bullshit with no basis in reality. I care that he gendered qualities that have no gender for, I assume, personal reasons (him being a self-hating Jew and a homosexual) and because of his bias against women. It really is transparent.


Because let's talk about women for a second. Is it JUST an amazing coincidence that the traits Weininger ascribed to them have become the dominant traits of modern society even as the latter has become more and more feminized or am i just seeing things?

This is an absurd claim not because modernity exhibits certain traits (I don't know which traits you are talking about), but because you choose to engender them as feminine and load femininity with negativity for no reason other than a certain dislike of women or their perceived qualities. Why? I have a feeling you are going to say "because women are like that", but that is also subjective, and by extension feminine in Weininger's thought.
 
Last edited:

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,161
I care that his ideas are bullshit with no basis in reality.

This is pretty rich coming from someone who has just rejected the notion of there being any such thing as "reality", or truth.

I mean, it just "depends".

This is an absurd claim not because modernity exhibits certain traits (I don't know which traits you are talking about), but because you choose to engender them as feminine and load femininity with negativity for no reason other than a certain dislike of women or their perceived qualities. Why? I have a feeling you are going to say "because women are like that", but that is also subjective, and by extension feminine in Weininger's thought.

This is next gen levels of sophistry you are engaging in here. I'm impressed. Everything is subjective, so whenever you say something, it is obviously subjective, and Weininger said the subjective is feminine, therefore you are a woman dude lmao.
 
Last edited:

Forest Dweller

Smoking Dicks
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
12,196
He is a flamboyant homosexual. Finding out he isn't gay would disappoint me in a way I haven't been disappointed since finding out dunkey is actually a fat white guy as opposed to a cool black dude.
I have some bad news for you.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
This is pretty rich coming from someone who has just rejected the notion of there being any such thing as "reality", or truth.

I mean, it just "depends".

I have made no such claim. I'm merely saying that these topics that belong to the social sciences have a different operating mechanism that can not have have a one-size-fits-all answer due to the reasons I cited, claiming otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is disingenuous, absolute passivity and subjectivity, and by your logic, feminine and modern.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,161
claiming otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence

What overwhelming evidence? All you've done so far is parade your belief system in my face even though i've explained many times i reject it completely.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
What overwhelming evidence? All you've done so far is parade your belief system in my face even though i've explained many times i reject it completely.

Not what we define as masculine and feminine, but what we define masculine and feminine as. And I wouldn't say it's subjective, it's intersubjective. No one person can in isolation be feminine or masculine, it requires an Other who you identify yourself in relation to. Some claim m/f is performative and imitative, others as a power dynamic between men wanting to control women's reproductive capabilities, others as a psychological state, others as a biological principle of xx and xy chromosomes or motile and immotile gametes, and others still as metaphysical Ideas. The problem is when we ask the question "but what IS masculinity and femininity really?" and found out that it requires that question to be put into context. You won't find out who cares for the children or who forcefully bleeds their noses as a symbolic transformation to manhood by peering into biology and citing xx and xy chromosomes.
I can see that you lack the aptitude for the logical and can only operate on subjective presumptions on shaky foundations that have shaped your incredibly narrow worldview (if it's a functional worldview at all), but try to at least follow the conversation properly. All you've done so far is parade your belief system in my face, yet nothing of what you say is even remotely possible or true.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,161
I don't see any evidence there, least of all of an "overwhelming" kind. Try again.

BTW, Torment was a pile of shit, and you can't argue that it was not. Britney Spears is also a greater composer than Beethoven.

"Evidence".

I can see that you lack the aptitude for the logical and can only operate on subjective presumptions on shaky foundations that have shaped your incredibly narrow worldview (if it's a functional worldview at all), but try to at least follow the conversation properly. All you've done so far is parade your belief system in my face, yet nothing of what you say is even remotely possible or true.

Guess i'll have to address this. Wanted to be coy for a bit but fuck it.

When you say i'm operating on "subjective presumptions", you are doing so by claiming that everything is subjective. Whether you can see this or not is irrelevant. Every time someone denies the existence of metaphysical truths doesn't understand that that in itself is a metaphysical argument, and thus self-contradictory. It's like when someone says "there is no truth".

In this case, your entire rejection of the idea that masculinity and femininity are clearly definable metaphysical concepts is by denying there is any such thing as clearly definable metaphysical concepts. Well my friend, this is in itself a clearly defined metaphysical argument.

This is basically a repeat of this shit show:

 
Last edited:

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,948
Pathfinder: Wrath
I don't see any evidence there, least of all of an "overwhelming" kind. Try again.

BTW, Torment was a pile of shit, and you can't argue that it was not. Britney Spears is also a greater composer than Beethoven.

"Evidence".

Oh, quite the contrary, it is evidence. Of the overwhelming kind in this context. As as I said, these are topics for the social sciences and philosophy that can not be proven as a one-size-fits-all kinda deal. You can thank Max Weber, Herbert Spencer, Émile Durkheim and yes, even Otto Weininger, for that. Whether Beethoven is a greater composer than Britney Spears is provable in an intersubjective manner, not an objective one. It requires a musical education, which I presume you have with that name, and an understanding of the history of art and music. Otherwise, there is no evidence that can be pointed to and said "this bifunctional chord in this symphony is the reason Beethoven is greater than Britney" or "the Grosse Fuge's beginning modulating to such and such is why that is". You know perfectly well it doesn't work like that. Knowing this is why you should also question other things that maybe also work like that.

What I am promoting and imploring you is to employ a little bit of skepticism once in a while. Not the fake kind, but real skepticism. Of what we can know and how we can know these things, and whether we can know any fundamental truths about the human condition. I am not saying there aren't any, but if you think you have found one, examine it closer, clash with other opinions. I think I made my point that any other (dubiously) well-read person you can clash with can turn your own arguments against you. Don't fall into that trap. Think.

As for everything else, I have not claimed there is no metaphysical truth or truth in general and that everything is subjective. That is just inane and I make no claim either way. You like to erect that strawman because it's an easy target, and have convinced yourself that that is what modernity in general is. Only a very few specific things are subjective and it has nothing to do with this. The only thing I claimed is that "who gives birth in the human population and why?" can be answered with "the ones with the immotile gametes", but "who scars their flesh to embody the spirit of the crocodile and why?" can not be answered with "the ones with the motile gametes".
 

Major_Blackhart

Codexia Lord Sodom
Patron
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
18,300
Location
Jersey for now
Ok, so here's what we know:

He doesn't have fuck you money.
He drinks soy.
He fluctuates in weight and currently looks about as agile as an overstuffed italian sausage.
Gay? Nah.
 

Grimlorn

Arcane
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
10,248
He's married to a hot woman. How can he be gay?

Also, he's talked about the reason he has a soft voice is because he grew up in California, because that's how they teach men to act. Hell if he grew up in San Francisco it makes even more sense because there you're surrounded by faggots. Just not a good environment for raising boys into men.
 

Major_Blackhart

Codexia Lord Sodom
Patron
Joined
Dec 5, 2002
Messages
18,300
Location
Jersey for now
I knew a guy who was essentially raised by his mother and two older sisters. No father in his life at all for whatever reason.

Total fag. At least he talked like one anyway.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom