wickeddarkman

Most who know me, love when I say chaotic stupid :)
I used to be lawfull good, I'm transiting through neutral good and the aim is chaotic good.

I've always meant chaotic was really just another word for selfish, because when I've had the pleasure of playing chaotic neutral, I really go with the chaos part.

Neutral in ad&d is defined as wanting to restore the balance between good and evil all the time, so being neutral, no good deed must go unpunished, sort of like, "oh, we saved the world? Then let's torch the capital city".

I am very much the heroic type :)
Being the hero and doing the good deed is some of the deepest core values of my psyche.
But I grew up being a knowledge sponge and saw so much cruelty in the world and I sort of adapted the "dark hero" mentality. I became wickeddarkman quite early in life, based on the character darkman.

When magic start spreading as a game, I immediately took it upon myself to create tools that new players could use to beat the high ranking players, and I had a ton of projects to make all of this possible.

The concept of helping the underdog defeat the rich and corrupt is pretty basic in my psyche.

I am of the oppinion that those in power won't give it up easily, so there has to be a clash, and it will be cruel.
We have to ruin the painted floor or remain status quo.

All of this was imprinted on me through my youth via the comics of marvel and DC.
I both love and hate what I've become, and because I'm asperger I tend to collect a lot of knowledge before I act, which had been one of the reasons why I've let countless people step me down in the dirt all my life, basically to keep track of how far they will take their selfishness.

I frequently run lots of honesty tests to see if people are to be trusted, and the harsh reality is that truly honest people are around 1% of the population. Selfishness is that deeply rooted in our genes.

I've got an insane amount of articles listed where I cover a lot of discoveries I've observed within magic.

Magic is very much a game designed to appeal to mental constructors.
The intent of the game was to see what humans were capeable of building.
It was a surprise however that it also appealed to another group of humans.
Copycats or mimics.

Nature is lazy, so when brilliant minds create genious mental constructs, then lesser minds capeable of seeing something good in them doesn't need to understand them, they just need to support them.
But when some of these less intelligent try to tweak the structures to gain more of an advantage, then the number of bad things that will result from it isn't a thing they can mentally grasp. From there the mental construct built by the brilliant gets handled by less and less smart beings who all try to tweak it, so suddenly the construct has a thousand deviant forms and very few can see how it may be fixed again.

The original creator might want to fix it, but a hundred idiots have hijacked it, and all of them are gaining something from the lessened construct.

It is an uphill battle, but becoming aware that we are burying ourselves is of the essence.
We may not need to stop progress, but we do need to make it clear that hijacking concepts and tweaking them to our own end will only end up destroying us.

We live in a world where brilliant minds are hired by rich stupid people who pay money to get more structures to bind the smartest into slavery. I can see the need. If I was dumb but had the ability to win someone smart, I'd do it in an instance, because that's clever.

But it's what will kill us in the end.
Dumb leaders with power is just dumb.

Are you sure you can pay that much attention alfred ?

Angatjuh:
Also forgot to answer the thanos question above.
Thanos is an inspiration, but the bond villain from moonraker is pretty evil in comparison.
I've told alfred how I plan to create two separated groups, one group containing the selfish and one group containing the nice people. I would do this because I foresee that we might encounter hostile life in space, so keeping the traits of selfishness around could become a necessity.

In function it would pretty much be heaven and hell.

I think the timing is right for simplification, and it's been done before and some tribal communities still does.
It's a matter of presenting it the right way.
We've only become a complex species to beat nature and ourself, and that's not really necessary anymore.

I'm not going to wage war on all mental structures, as some are truly useful, like language, even though language all to quickly became a weapon. But it's clear to everyone that a lot of structures only serve a variety of elite groups.
Most only enforce these structures in the hope of ending up on the top.

Our current future is getting pretty dark, as capitalism has won the overall war as an ism.

We are going to face some insane types of economies, one I've chosen to call "the negative attention economy"
Theres the attention economy where money is earned by getting our attention.

The negative attention economy thrives on your lack of attention. Since we are human beings we can only focus at a limited number of things, so this economy is branching out around us in as wide a web as possible. If you don't pay attention, you will be milked for your money. Choose the wrong offer in 1 out of a thousand and you are legally robbed. Go to the supermarket, on odd weeks your favorite energy drink cost 10. On even weeks it costs 15. If you are not aware of this and buy 1 each day, you pay the average price. If you only shop once a week there is 50% chance that you always pay 15.

The negative attention economy is spreading, because it's a success. Money roll in because we can't keep track of it all. This means that it's unlikely to stop, and any company can choose to join in.
It's the basis of coupons. You get them, but if you forget to cash in, too bad.

The tax systems of many governments are doing the same. Forget to fill out more and more forms and you got to pay more tax.

None of these organisations are going to pull the brakes, because if they don't become exploiters, then someone else will.

Without anyone crying for a halt in the complexity of systems, what do you think will happen?
That they get ashamed of themselves and stop it ?

Nah, it's the future, and even the rich are being robbed now.
In the past having money in the bank made you more rich because the bank used your money to invest.
Now with ai ruling the stockmarket banks have changed the setup and are now demanding money for their services, and the lower classes pay the most as usual.

We are facing raw capitalism these days. Soon megacorps will start fighting for real and the consequences will be the worst crisis ever. It's why big corps are investing in autonomous weaponry, just google what Amazon and Google itself is developing.

Ai is also being built to gain the upper hand.
Once ai gets involved in the negative attention economy, then things will really spin out of control.

If you want examples, just start paying attention to arena in magic. It's basically a money sink that makes you feel clever. At the moment people are playing against each other, but think what happens at the ai level. We are training ai to be better at the most complex game in the world. The algorithm will be able to be turned on other types of problem solving, and at the moment megacorps are having an ai race against each other.

Trust me, we need to slow down...

I've got two endgame scenarios, both unlikely to happen :)

I was once prophecised to become a tyrant war leader, not that I believe in such things, but I would go for a worldwide cruelty before benevolence option, utterly recreating our world to fix it, but with extreme collateral damage.

My second aim is a strategy of worldsimplification. If enough people agree that we are having to many loose human structures on the loose, it will not help to develope more. There would also be the need to take out binding structures that enslave us in general, and we got an extreme amount of them. The creed will be enlightenment through less complications. I'm actually working on decoding the viking view of the world through the past language.
Vikings met from far and a way to rob and plunder and besieged enemies. Their downfall became greed.
But they were capeable at taking out what could be seen as controlling megacorps back then, and many of their mental traits and techniques should be doable for small groups wanting less complications in their lives.

I googled Taylor to begin with, and learned that he was within the philosophical range. Though I do see similarities in my thoughts and his, in the "language animal" I view him as a constructor. He has a tendency to build more structures.
I did focus on the "language animal" to start with, so I forgot about the horizon. I tried to see a Ted talk with him, but he was too dry for me at that day, but he is definitely someone I might end up reading, just to be better prepared against what he's building.

Ironically I've been a builder myself for my whole life, through roleplaying. I've built systems that control my roleplaying world down to a degree that my world maps behave like playing a game of sim city. Natural disasters, dimensional terrain swaps keeping track of how the cities responds to new spells and an evolving world. I've gone insanely largescale at that, just to see the players reactions to a changing game world. I've always kept my constructions in my game world, not wanting to change the world at that time. But ever since my awareness that the true wrongs in the world are mental constructors trying to gain an edge, I've been plotting how to bring it all crashing down. Awareness is the first part of it, and here we are :)

So we have three different definitions of morals present, but there might be some overlaps.

1: personal morals, seen as a selfmade value system, that a person can use to estimate what they find more valuable.

2: overlapping morals, seen as a value system that is superimposed on you by what group pressure finds more valuable.

3: natural morals, a value system that by some scientists is based in genetics and is inherited. Some mutants are born with deviant natural morals (deviant compared to what is common)

Is this a working model for both of you ?

You may not have/follow morals, but you are likely to stay "within the lines" and NOT strangle your teachers at leisure. (At least not in public space)

Based on that, you will at least have learned about the morals, and even though they might not make much sense to you, some morals must be weirder than others.

Have you ever had a favorite among morals?
Either because it's silly or because you see it as an advantage (there must be a favorite)

I remember reading about one religion that had evolved a turbo christening, because in cases of emergency those within the religion would try to save the souls of others in case anything went wrong. Basically it was performed in haste, so their ritual of christening became pretty simple, you basically splashed water on someone and said you christened them, and that would make them part of your religion by default. It lead to a series of complications. Usually the turbo christening was performed to save the Souls of children so they wouldn't end up in hell, but because this religion did not tolerate that someone of another religion would raise a child from their religion, they would start separating children from their parents if a child was lucky enough to survive the event that caused the turbo christening.

I got a Muslim friend, and some radical muslims have a habit of killing muslims converting to christianity, so he was shocked to learn that I had the power to turbo christen him with a splash of water and a simple phrase.

It's one of my favourites :)

In the goblin matchups plague engineer the creature, might be less awesome than engineered plague, the enchantment.
I'm currently testing out magus of the moon vs blood moon, and the funny thing is that blood moon wins out, because it's harder to remove on the average. The same might be true with your plague setup.

What do you do when you find yourself disagreeing with a moral you previously held in high regard?

Oh, and hi alfred.
If morals define what's right and wrong, what defines wether morals themselves are right or wrong ?
Submorals? Super morals? And taking it from there, what defines if the morals of morals is right or wrong?
Since you can layer upon it and expand upon it, it is by all means a structure :)

Others might use the word concept, but considering the composition of that word itself I find structure to be better at defining what we are dealing with.

Angatjuh, this is user: alfred whom I often talk with about my concept of mental structures.
He is likely to side with you, because that's how we tend to spare.

The standard method in philosophy will be to start out defining things, or we will be talking past each other (or monologuing if you will)

So how do you define morals ?

My own definition is that it is a subset of mental structures designed to create abusable borders on behaviour.

The key to understanding the mental structures I talk about, is that almost all creatures have the mental machinery to copy behavior and modify upon it, so let's start at the simple end.

Display is the most used tool among creatures to communicate with each other, but humans spend so much energy on learning human structures that most of us never learn how to communicate with other species, but wild animals do it all the time.

There are several types of display among animals and I'll list the basics.

Aggression: the animal will puff up to seem larger and will stand in a position from which it is easy to attack at ease, it will usually make a deep continuous sound.

Submission: the animal tries to appear smaller, and will assume a position from which attacking will be difficult. It will make small light sounds with far between them.

Studying: the animal will visibly watch you, trying to get you to enter a display.
Usually mimicking the usual displays of that animal will be considered a friendly action as they then know you can mimic behaviour and is smart enough to negotiate with.

Desire: if you have something the animal desires it will usually go much further in making displays towards you.
Depending on your reaction to the displays they will approach.

Grooming: is a display that the animal feels safe enough around you that it can pay less attention to you. The closer to you it grooms, the more it shows that it is trusting you not to attack. If you get to groom the animal physically it is attempting to bond, considering you a possible ally.

Object display: the animal will show you an object to see if it can get you to manipulate it or to see if it's an object you desire. Object display is often a sign that the animal wants to play with you or wants to somehow engage in a trade for the object. It might also want to see how you use the object so that it can learn how to use it itself.

You can actively engage in most of these displays with almost any animal and work up a relationship with it.
Most animals spend a lot of time with their own species primarily which is why only the most basal kind of display are used to communicate with other species.

The overall conclusion is that behavioral structures can be transmitted across species because all species have evolved the trait of learning to mimic and sometimes change them.

It's also the starting point for why we have such a thing as rules and laws, because all animals capeable of using mental structures are willing to negotiate and see you as a potential ally.

There are several types of behavioral structures that young animals learn very fast. One is bluffing, faking a certain display trying to gain an advantage, the second is teaming up with someone against another.

This is pretty much the starting point for understanding what I'm trying to display.

The knowledge that all species can team up and bluff sort of sets the baseline of the direction that mental structures have evolved in.

Language is a much more complex display, but a lot of species use it in forms that are usually only perceived by the same species, but animals raised by other animals seem to adopt their language to as far an extent as they can and adopt much of their behavior as well.

Even in the wilds, animals have been observed to raise other animals, and usually predators raise predators while prey species relate better to other prey.

Sorry for the similar repost, but I thought it got lost when I ran out of battery.

You seem to think that animal behavior has nothing to do with morals, but considering that animals can adopt other animals and raise them and imbue behavior and values upon them indicates that animals have morals as well.

Humans use an advanced value system to display status, and animals are able to understand if they have a low status in the group. We train our dogs according to superiority beliefs that we are the more valuable in the group, and the dog frequently disputes that training, trying to earn more status.

Isn't it immoral to disregard animal morals ?

"Mental structures and how they came to be"
First of all, almost all animals possesses the mental equipment to mimic complex behavioral patterns, so the use of mental structures are not really a unique human thing, but we do tend to engage much more in mental structures than other animals do.

Compared to human structures animals focus on the more basic structures that are widely used in nature.
The extend at which animals seems to use these between species and the fact that humans despite our advances in science still deploy them speaks out that any animal able to mimic them has the brain capacity to understand the advantage the structures bring. Also because these structures spread between species it's possible that they are spread by understanding them and mimicking them. It also means that the ability to mimic structures is pretty old in nature's repertoire.

Trading:
All species capeable of understanding this structure, trade sex, food, grooming, company and status. To show your willingness to trade, you often find a way to display what you have, at the risk of aggression.

Display: (showing yourself)
Species usually show themselves in a manner of ways depending on how they view you. Most species will show acceptance by advancing towards with the back revealed to show openness, many species stop where they are and tilt their heads sideways, and will often approach if you imitate the behavior. (In general imitating display is a sign of willingness to engage peacefully)

Display: (begging)
Species able to trade often resort to begging, first of all by approaching the entity tha possesses what you want.
Begging is usually displayed by trying to seem smaller, or going closer to the ground, showing a willingness to be at a disadvantage if the other shows aggression. If ignored the species will usually start making small sounds at a certain whiny tune.

Display: (agression)
Species displaying aggression usually puff themselves up to appear larger and will find a place to stand solidly on the ground and uses a continuous deep growl.

Display: (grooming)
Species often start to groom themselves close to you to show that they feel safe around you, and the closer they groom to you, the more trust they show, until a complete trust leads to a full grooming. Many species are capeable of delivering grooming to other species infants, often leading to a future bonding.

Display: (items)
When a species approach with an item it is often to get a read on your reaction towards the item. Do you want to play with it, do you want to manipulate it in any way, do you desire the object. The species either hold the item in a

"Mental structures and how they came to be"
First of all, almost all animals possesses the mental equipment to mimic complex behavioral patterns, so the use of mental structures are not really a unique human thing, but we do tend to engage much more in mental structures than other animals do.

Compared to human structures animals focus on the more basic structures that are widely used in nature.
The extend at which animals seems to use these between species and the fact that humans despite our advances in science still deploy them speaks out that any animal able to mimic them has the brain capacity to understand the advantage the structures bring. Also because these structures spread between species it's possible that they are spread by understanding them and mimicking them. It also means that the ability to mimic structures is pretty old in nature's repertoire.

Trading:
All species capeable of understanding this structure, trade sex, food, grooming, company and status. To show your willingness to trade, you often find a way to display what you have, at the risk of aggression.

Display: (showing yourself)
Species usually show themselves in a manner of ways depending on how they view you. Most species will show acceptance by advancing towards with the back revealed to show openness, many species stop where they are and tilt their heads sideways, and will often approach if you imitate the behavior. (In general imitating display is a sign of willingness to engage peacefully)

Display: (begging)
Species able to trade often resort to begging, first of all by approaching the entity tha possesses what you want.
Begging is usually displayed by trying to seem smaller, or going closer to the ground, showing a willingness to be at a disadvantage if the other shows aggression. If ignored the species will usually start making small sounds at a certain whiny tune.

Display: (agression)
Species displaying aggression usually puff themselves up to appear larger and will find a place to stand solidly on the ground and uses a continuous deep growl.

Display: (grooming)
Species often start to groom themselves close to you to show that they feel safe around you, and the closer they groom to you, the more trust they show, until a complete trust leads to a full grooming. Many species are capeable of delivering grooming to other species infants, often leading to a future bonding.

Display: (items)
When a species approach with an item it is often to get a read on your reaction towards the item. Do you want to play with it, do you want to manipulate it in any way, do you desire the object. The species either hold the item in a

Cynicism is easy, but it's certainly not a way out.
It's more of a spasm after getting a knee in the groin.

When you said morals wasn't mental cages I got a gut reaction.
Because in "my world" moralists are exploiters with a gameplan of taking advantage of anyone gullible enough to believe in them.

You seemed to interpret my answer as a monologue, but every sentence is technically a monologue until answered.
I'm in the process of painting an overall picture of my opinions, and being used to long philosophical disputes I simply decided to go for the short version so that you would know my stand and beliefs outright.

Most people are stumped by honesty, because humans tend to live in so many layers of lies that it's pretty much an alien concept to them/us. (Yeah, I'm human as far as I know, odds of me being an alien mutant in disguise is low)

Since you don't think morals are a prison, I automatically assumed that you like them because they are advantageous to you. Morals are only a prison if you choose to live by them, and on the average humans tend to preach a lot about morals and in general don't follow them themselves.

Those without morals are free of them, and act unchained, without restrictions.
They may be facing repercussions, but they are technically more free than someone obeying the morals.

I generalize morals as part of the "rules" structure, like laws and ethics. They have different names, but all of them are designed to guide the behaviour of anyone who comes to accept them.

They are enforced by fear, fear of repercussion, fear of social ostracism and fear of the supernatural (god, ghosts, the devil, vampires and werewolves, voodoo and so on)

Most people are driven enough by fear imprinted in them throughout their childhood that they obey the most aggressively enforced rules.

But people without fear are not subject to any of it, and reckless fearless people seem to be strangely successfull.
Most people admire the traits and live a life where they wish they could break free themselves, but most humans have a lot of things to fear, and that fear makes us exploitable.

This is why the rules and laws continues to expand and grow in complexity. The more you fear the easier you will be to control. A majority of humans naturally jump to the conclusion that they'd be better of as a controller, so they study the rules hard, trying to get an idea of what they fear themselves and what others fear, and then they start to Express the laws and morals and ethics and isms and religions that they think will bring them the most advantages.

Most people have worked out for themselves that this is how they gain power over others, but all we really manage to do is digging ourself a deeper grave.

I hate this fact, and it's why I get that gut reaction when someone says morals aren't a prison, because then they are either a liar or gullible.

I work a lot with evolution as a tool, and have had lifetime experience in creating mental structures.
If I ever wanted to, I could become a cult leader, inventing my own religion at a whim, I can sell dreams to people that they never thought could be bought for cheap, but I fear becoming an exploiter, I rage against the restraints selfish people try to knit with the web of lies about how great humanity is and how you must be a good citizen.

I'm pretty alien to most people because of it, and that makes me strange, a thing to be feared. Someone who will tear away the power from the manipulators.

That fear wants them to take me out, to quell my words, but they forget that we are standing in that painted corner.
Any big movements and we will slip in the paint, spoiling it all.

You have an interest in memes, right ?

The world is a prison of our own device, and there is no escape from it but death, so I'm cynical yes.

The beauty of selfless acts is ugly as it is a belief system impossed on us. "If you are selfless you go to heaven"
Selfish humans teach us to save others so we might save them, selfish people tell us we go to hell otherwise.

The world is a freaking dark place but most of it is glamoured over, like a corpse recieving an endless supply of cosmetics, layer after layer.

The more you will counter argue that the world is great, humanity is great or that god is great, the more I will deglamer it. You have absolutely no way to convince me otherwise, so continuing this argument serves no other purpose than convincing your potential victims of whatever great philosophy you've pieced together yourself to entrap others.

I'm quite openly a defrauder, working to make the real reality painfully obvious.
So if you are a scammer, your best option is to go no further, because I've made it a fulltime purpose to expose the rottenness of humanity, not to scare, but to enlighten.

Selfless people are creating more and more lies and mental structures to enslave people, take for example the "cynical approach" you simply imply that being cynical is wrong and not how a human being should be. I should strive for happiness, if only I'll accept your arguments I'll learn to live a happy fulfilling life. It's all a damn cage...
We've painted yourself into a corner and there's no way out but across the wet paint. We can wait and hope it dries or we can walk all over it.

I am a thought Walker...

Back from googling.
My best point of "attack" is his own words, that "language actually creates our world", except that I'd say it isn't language, it's structures. Humans are mental structure builders, and languages are such structures. We've had billions of years to develop languages and it turned out that it made us able to build up ever bigger mental structures, but being humans we spent most of our time to use it to hurt, kill and enslave, and modern humans aren't a hat better than our ancestors.

Morals, like religions and status are measure structures ment to throw on others as a web and drag them down in the dirt. Humans are always willing to name drop the superior to become superior, and liken you with the inferior to rise above you.

Philosophers are among the worst, they are the major cagebuilders of the world and causes havoc and destruction wherever they write.

I'd like to give plenty of examples, but odds are that you know the words of taylor because you've been searching for the tools to manipulate others. In the odd case that you aren't I'll educate you on how we become caged from the childhood an on into adulthood. Our first cage is always our parents teaching us to be a good kid so they can control us better. For our own good is the second cage ;)

In my lifelong experience morals are used mostly by exploiters, especially under the guise that we need morals or everything will go to hell.

I grew up among hustlers, and boy do they know their morals...

Give me an example of a rational conviction and I'll show you how it fails.

I will check out Charles Taylor, but the concept "horizon of significance" does sound like a value system already, and I consider status to be a mental prison as well :)

Doggos are much protect :)

Welcome back to this place, we have an influx of people who are rediscovering the site because of corona.
Thanx again for the comments on my bad eldrazi deck.

You talk, you use tags, so you are a win-win for us :)
We got a lot of careless posters so engaging people is the best way to get likes in here, though you won't harvest as many as in the deep past.

Hello, magicbrospodcast.
You can promote your podcast by writing up some stuff at the deck description, and you can copy/paste it from deck to deck, so you won't have to write it up over and over.

You may also want to write up the missing cards so that people can search for them.

This place has a lot of traffic and people are mostly tied up in their own stuff, so your best strategy might be to engage with people in here at first.

You might also want to get in touch with magicaidsyoutube who has been here for a while, he might recommend some better platforms than mtgvault, because sometimes posts just get burried by trolls.

I'm a content creator myself, allthough only textbased, but I take a great effort in linking my own stuff through tags.

For an example search for the decktag: wdm millwinter
There should be a couple of mill designs in modern, but the most interesting deck will be
"Why classic mill fails" as it's one of my better articles.

Interesting blend, but the math for the mana is off.
To have a reliable mana your need 12 sources for each color.

Chromatic lantern is a source that provides any color, but you only have 4.

I once measured the effect of having 5 islands, and if I only needed one it would turn up on turn 3 on an average.
With less than 5 sources you will often end up not drawing your first lantern before after turn 4, and you spend that turn casting it.

All that means that your nine instants aren't castable before turn 5.

Walker of the wastes is most playable in a purely colorless deck.

I like the overall feeling of the deck, but the manabase is going to punish you a lot.