Raped by The Machine

Jojigirl · 2020-02-10 03:37:12

Spoonwood wrote:

Jojigirl wrote:
Did you really just compare a game mechanic to rape?
All I have to say is Fuck you for even taking rape as lightly as you just did.. Fucking idiot.
Aren't we suppose to imagine OHOL characters as if they were real people living in the future? How do you think they would feel when, as ever so often happens, reproduction is forced upon them?

Again, Fuck you!

This is a fucking game you jackass, rape is not!

You have severe mental problems if you don't see the wrong in your post. Unless you're a POS rapist yourself? This post speaks volumes on who you are. I will be avoiding your posts here on out. I am thankful that I do not know you in person, I feel extremely sorry for everyone who does.

Last edited by Jojigirl (2020-02-10 03:55:30)

Grim_Arbiter · 2020-02-10 03:41:23

Jojigirl wrote:

Did you really just compare a game mechanic to rape?
All I have to say is Fuck you for even taking rape as lightly as you just did.. Fucking idiot.

He never ACTUALLY said that, what he said was comparable to the holy ghost/spirit and the virgin mary. Did god "rape" her in that story? That story is actually a hilarious one if you think about it realistically today. Which is why I said that it was funny to have a different version of that goofy idea from Jason.

I'm from the school of thought too that in comedy either everything is ok, or nothing is ok. You know that joking about a huge ordeal in your life can take the weight off of it? I AM NOT saying it's the best way, but if a victim of something like that found relief by making a joke, should they get that same criticism?

Edit* I was talking about jasons response, and realize now you were talking about spoon?

Last edited by Grim_Arbiter (2020-02-10 03:44:32)

DestinyCall · 2020-02-10 04:22:26

Grim_Arbiter wrote:

I'm from the school of thought too that in comedy either everything is ok, or nothing is ok. You know that joking about a huge ordeal in your life can take the weight off of it? I AM NOT saying it's the best way, but if a victim of something like that found relief by making a joke, should they get that same criticism?
Edit* I was talking about jasons response, and realize now you were talking about spoon?

I have always had a problem with this line of defense for tasteless jokes on sensitive subjects. One of the golden rules of comedy is proper timing and it is always important to consider your audience. Dead baby jokes in a maternity ward? Not funny. Holocaust jokes to your Jewish coworker? Maybe just don't. Rape jokes to a gender-diverse audience of complete strangers? You decide.

I work in healthcare. It is a high stress job and involves dealing with actual life and death situations at times. One of the ways you deal with the stress is humor. Sometimes that humor gets pretty black. But I would never make a joke about death to "cheer up" a grieving family member. Not only would it be incredibly unprofessional ... it wouldn't be funny. And that is just not okay.

Grim_Arbiter · 2020-02-10 04:45:34

Oh destiny I agree. I'm not defending either way I'm just pointing out both sides. Like you said holocaust jokes coming from a person not of that faith to someone of that faith could be hurtful. Where as two people of that faith could joke to eachother about how horrible it was. I do think comedy is a form of healing, but like you said it needs guidance. Antibiotics can be the best thing, if used when needed at the right dose and time. If you just ate antibiotics "just cause you feel like it" your probably gonna suffer.

Also there's just the whole issue of assumptions amplified greatly by anonymity. In life you should never assume the best about someone, or the worst about someone, and when your not face to face discussing these things it's impossible to really know where someone is coming from at all.

DestinyCall · 2020-02-10 05:27:35

Yeah ... and the Holocaust joke example was taken from real life. The person making the jokes was definitely not Jewish. And her joking was neither encouraged nor reciprocated by the other party. It was deeply uncomfortable.

I don't think the joker was anti-semitic. But her sense of humor was rather ... unfiltered. She did eventually stop after making a gas chamber joke. I think even she realized that was a step too far.

Wuatduhf · 2020-02-10 15:17:57

fug wrote:

Really going to need a chance to spawn a messiah baby now. Born with painted on pants and shirt with a little hat instead of a halo.

/hmph

jord1990 · 2020-02-10 16:03:08

The original post isnt even a tasteless joke.

"This game is about parenting and people with childeren from rape are great parents"

Thats not a joke thats just straight up garbage. I can see how allot of people would find it very offensive, But Jason doesnt seem to care that its on his forum for a game he advertises as a game about parenting and civilization building. So I wont shut it down, Maybe you should make a couple more threads speculating about different ways to add it to the game.

I mean racism is already a core part of the game why dont we go for broke! Oh but if you do please change the trailer so the people dont think this is a family friendly game.

Grim_Arbiter · 2020-02-10 16:17:14

Oh fek we broke jord now...

Spoonwood · 2020-02-10 18:59:26

jord1990 wrote:

I can see how allot of people would find it very offensive, But Jason doesnt seem to care that its on his forum for a game he advertises as a game about parenting and civilization building

The structure of real parenting involves children coming into being as a result of their parents. In OHOL though parenting exists by a strange inversion where a baby causes parenthood (rape by the machine involves, in part, children forcing reproduction on their mother). For this to become a game about parenting, Jason would have accept that the reproductive process might not result in children, or have bots as a children. He rejected bots as a children as a possibility on the github. Do you think with Jason's insistence on being the father of all, that's it likely that he could accept the possibility of failure of the reproductive process?

Jason claimed the following:

jasonrohrer wrote:

The game takes place in the realm of thought experiments.
It is "in the future," because the thought experiment is about the future.
But this world is obviously not earth.... it is 50,000x bigger than earth, and it has no oceans. So there was no apocalypse here. There are no ruins.
The world is the imaginary space inside which this thought experiment plays out

Perhaps Jason didn't understand that in a thought experiment the structure of the reality one wants to examine needs to get mirrored. Or it's a bad faith thought experiment, which I feel tempted to label a hoax. Humanity's future won't involve children making a choice which probably results in some woman becoming their mother also.

jasonrohrer · 2020-02-10 19:32:13

There are also engineering constraints.

You have a variable flow of incoming players.

Someone needs to be the parent of each of these players.

To make the interactions as meaningful and real as possible, neither mother nor babies can be bots.

Furthermore, I want almost everyone to join the game as a helpless baby.

Mating mechanics mean that people can chose whether or not to have babies, meaning that existing players can control the flow of incoming players. When there's a mismatch between how many players are trying to join and how many players have chosen to have a baby, we have a problem.

In a 10,000 foot view of humanity where each second is six days, I have to pick which details to include, and which to leave out. I chose to leave out mating, and thus birth control.

karltown_veteran · 2020-02-10 19:35:25

For Christ’s sake spoonwood. Back to your old trolling shit it seems. Guess the temp ban did nothing.

Spoonwood · 2020-02-11 01:02:03

Legs wrote:

I am also an antinatalist.

Thanks for mentioning antinatalism. I had briefly read about such before, and have started studying that ethical position, it seems rather powerful and profound.

Legs · 2020-02-11 02:05:46

Taken to a logical extreme it results in human extinction. Taken to a personal extreme it results in relatively fit people failing to reproduce. Considering that poorer and less developed people statistically reproduce more and don't care about the resulting suffering. A realistic approach is to support planned parenthood and adoption when parents are less fit. Logically even the wealthy and genetically blessed suffer and so would be better off never being born, but realistically that's the best case scenario. Typing that out now it's a sort of eugenics in a sense.

Unless you're really bitter and committed enough to a doomed philosophy ultimately advocating for human extinction.

Last edited by Legs (2020-02-11 02:06:25)

DestinyCall · 2020-02-11 06:42:10

The philosophy behind antinatalism hinges on the idea that all life is suffering, therefore choosing to bring more people into this cruel world without their consent is morally repugnant. The only right thing to do is break the cycle of death and sickness and old age and apathy and neglect and abuse and suffering and other terrible things that come about due to human existence by choosing to not make any more humanity. Only in this way can the pain stop.

So yes, human extinction is quite literally the goal of antinatalism. Eugenics does not go far enough. Adoption isn't sufficient. You need to go straight to the source of all that nasty evil - life itself.

Basically think of PETA euthanizing dogs so they aren't forced to exist as someone's pet.

Gogo · 2020-02-11 09:07:01

My friend is antinatalist and I thought about it.

In fact we can't make less suffering in this world, less humans or animals means more other lifeforms with need for energy (consuming other lives). If we turn our planet to dust some other organisms will be shaped after time.

Caramella · 2020-02-11 09:10:15

What the fuck?

Spoonwood · 2020-02-12 03:11:21

DestinyCall wrote:

The philosophy behind antinatalism hinges on the idea that all life is suffering

After reading a few sources like Wikipedia, and listening to some conversations where David Benatar talks, I've learned that this isn't the case. Benatar's position, who's a prominent proponent of anti-natalism, seems to have derived from a posteriori observations that the bad outweighs the good. Examples include that there exists more pain than pleasure... there's chronic pain, but no such thing as chronic pleasure, and there's more things that we don't know than things that we know. There's more texting on cellphones than people talking or writing in complete sentences... perhaps better there's more examples of miscommunication and unclear language than communication and clear language.

DestinyCall wrote:

Basically think of PETA euthanizing dogs so they aren't forced to exist as someone's pet.

Benatar says in many places there's a difference in talking about a being coming into existence versus a being continuing to exist. When we ask whether or not a being should get born, it doesn't exist. PETA euthanizing dogs would happen when dogs already exist. So, I hope you can understand why I disagree with your suggestion as accurate.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-03-23 19:10:14)

Lum · 2020-02-12 10:47:30

ay yo jason FUCKS

Spoonwood · 2020-02-25 01:25:11

jasonrohrer wrote:

There are also engineering constraints.
You have a variable flow of incoming players.
Someone needs to be the parent of each of these players.

Why? So that almost all players have the same starting conditions? So that everyone is likely to have the same experience of birthing a child happening due to forces beyond their in-game control? So that lives tend to feel the same, since they start the same? So that every childbirth is the same old story of 'I had a baby pop out of me without me doing a damn thing to make it happen'?

jasonrohrer wrote:

To make the interactions as meaningful and real as possible, neither mother nor babies can be bots.

Why? Because realistic bots can't be get made? Because you assume that interacting with part of a computer program can't be as meaningful as interacting with a human being? Because every new life is likely the same old thing of interacting with other people?

jasonrohrer wrote:

Furthermore, I want almost everyone to join the game as a helpless baby.

The same old starting experience for almost every player. And consequently for players who play more than once, the start of their life probably feels rather similar to their previous lives. The same old feeling of helplessness.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Mating mechanics mean that people can chose whether or not to have babies, meaning that existing players can control the flow of incoming players. When there's a mismatch between how many players are trying to join and how many players have chosen to have a baby, we have a problem.

No, YOU would have a problem, because of your insistence on putting as many players as possible into the same helpless and dependent starting state. Perhaps, because you would rather have a narrow starting experience for players... that of being a helpless baby where sex is irrelevant, instead of possibly three starting states, a man, a woman (and there's no reason that the man or woman would always need to be the same age... some of them could start at 3 or 8), or a helpless baby with more possibilities for starting experiences. Thus, perhaps it's because, you end up preferring monotony to diversity.

jasonrohrer wrote:

In a 10,000 foot view of humanity where each second is six days, I have to pick which details to include, and which to leave out. I chose to leave out mating, and thus birth control.

Perhaps, you choose to leave those things out, because you prefer for your players to have a narrower range of experiences than a wider range of experiences. Perhaps you run all of your servers on the same system, because you think it's better to have similar experiences than different possible experiences. Perhaps you put everyone not checking a custom server on the same server, because you didn't like how different main servers use to differ. Perhaps you did the temperature overhaul, because you'd rather have players living in similar climate conditions than a diversity of climate conditions. Perhaps you did tool based limitations to put capable players into the same sort of dependence as new players... as if capable players should have a similar experience to players who learn more slowly, like how Harrison Bergeron just had to get made "equal" to everyone else.

Sure, the above likely does not get at Jason's real motivations. But, that wasn't the point anyways.

"Infinite unique situation generator"?

No, Jason makes plenty of choices that suggest a bias towards fewer unique situations in the game than more unique situations in the game. And there's likely plenty more than what I've talked about above.

Keyin · 2020-02-25 03:01:48

I find myself agreeing with most of what Spoon is getting at. Would be nice to have a toggle on/off for babies. The situation of all fertile females having toggle off is highly improbable, considering the attitudes of the player base generally being pro 'I want to be a mom'

Instead of me leaving babies to die and get reborn to another willing person, we could skip that step entirely with a fertility toggle. They would get the child right away instead of it needing to die first. Saves everyone time.

Morti · 2020-02-25 07:59:17

DestinyCall wrote:

The philosophy behind antinatalism hinges on the idea that all life is suffering, therefore choosing to bring more people into this cruel world without their consent is morally repugnant. The only right thing to do is break the cycle of death and sickness and old age and apathy and neglect and abuse and suffering and other terrible things that come about due to human existence by choosing to not make any more humanity. Only in this way can the pain stop.
So yes, human extinction is quite literally the goal of antinatalism. Eugenics does not go far enough. Adoption isn't sufficient. You need to go straight to the source of all that nasty evil - life itself.
Basically think of PETA euthanizing dogs so they aren't forced to exist as someone's pet.

No, the real thing to do is define suffering, define life, and deal with the overlap of the Venn diagram of those two definitions. Preferably with priority on the most, insufferable aspects, but not ignoring any of the overlapping factors. Some of the details, like the confusion and frustration caused by lies, can be culturally alleviated through practice, education and habit. Other aspects, such as physical pain, can be addressed chemically, or even, technologically, by someday replacing the bodies nervous system with an electrical threat detection system that simulates the usefulness of the nervous system and purpose of getting us to protect our bodies from harm, without the downsides of persistent aches and pains.

Any example of an experience in life that would cause suffering, can be slowly, over the course of future evolution, be mitigated, if not entirely eliminated naturally, but most antinatalists are too fucking stupid to truly see beyond their own experience. Evolution is too slow for them, biotech is too complex for them. Do any of them forgo the consumption of other life forms, plants or, in many cases, animals, and instead use their bodies to transform material not currently being used by another life form, to rebuild and repair themselves? No. They are all, fucking hypocrites. They don't really try to minimize the harm they are responsible for, they whine about the harm they see and ignore 4 billion years of life's trials and errors, attempting to make itself as efficient as possible.

That efficiency comes with life's consumption of itself, while also eating into the planet, atom-by-atom, as the primary producers feed everyone else up the food pyramid. It is the effort, of those primary producers, that we should be emulating and accelerating, supporting and advancing, as the sentient organisms atop this mountain of sacrifices that have been made for the last billion years, when life began consuming itself to save energy.

Industrially imitating the actions of primary producers would go a long way towards alleviate the bulk of suffering, experienced by life's consumption of itself to save time and energy, but it will not eradicate all forms of suffering, especially not those brought on by people's dishonesty and manipulation of each other for social power gains. Human beings, lying and intentionally forgoing the transfer of pertinent information, as it relates to cases where that information would have been vital to the victims avoidance of conflict that results in suffering, is another matter to deal with - but - it can and will be dealt with, more thoroughly, when other, higher priority, matters of suffering are on the decline.

Some degree of existential suffering, brought on by deep consideration of any myriad of factors, may always linger with us:
- Any number of past events that our genes have benefited from, that have caused, the most extreme, forms of suffering of other beings.
- Any number of potential future events, that life may have to endure as resources, like matter and energy, become scarce, right on up to the heat death of the universe.
- And any number of present, unknown, states that may plague curious minds, such as, not knowing if beings on another world, in another galaxy entirely, aren't all experiencing tremendous amounts of pain, as their star goes super nova, and it's plasma vaporizes their planets surface, just as their most sentient species was on the technological verge of preventing it.

Any number of considerations, physical or mental states, or emotional experiences, may still bring about something that future beings look back to the present and compare to suffering, just as we look back to the accounts of ancient cultures, or even long extinct species, and dredge up parallels to present-day experiences.

But just as we, have our means to address some forms of suffering today, and will, invent new ones in time, so will those beings of the future, always carry on alleviating and eliminating, maladies of their own. It is, through such efforts, that the standards of life have been improved so much, that we could afford the opportunity to sit around, eat bananas and develop language such that we could convey our concerns, more concisely to one another, and thus, weigh them, measure them, calculate and construct, solutions, to bring about their demise.

There never was, and never will be, a form of suffering that exists for life, that life itself cannot alleviate, without eradicating itself, because, in that Venn diagram of suffering and life, suffering is, and will always be, just a few, tiny pixels, of the full display, that is, every, and all, aspects, of life.

.

^ Do not fall into the trap, of confusing that, with everything else that you see.

Because you being in that tiny trap, is itself, another form of suffering, for life to deal with - a distraction, from the greater problems, we are all working on, collectively.

--

Now, some antinatalists are helping more constructive people. They are, as we all are, drivers on the road of life, and when they hit a pot hole, they can call in to the county commissioner, and suggest it be patched. Even though they go so far as to say "There shouldn't be a road! We shouldn't even be driving!" they usually, eventually, have a reason for getting so pissy, and when they come around to explaining what that reason is, maybe someone listening gets off their ass and fixes the road, or, calls the county and lets them know the hole is there. So, it's not an entirely useless exercise. But it is, always, a very personally selfish way of drawing a mountain of a molehill.

Probably 9/10 ANs are just people who aren't getting laid enough.

And that, is just another pothole, we should be filling. So, get fucked. Fuck someone else. And cuddle afterwards.

That's life.

Spoonwood · 2020-02-25 17:04:18

Keyin wrote:

I find myself agreeing with most of what Spoon is getting at. Would be nice to have a toggle on/off for babies. The situation of all fertile females having toggle off is highly improbable, considering the attitudes of the player base generally being pro 'I want to be a mom'

I'm not sure what you mean by toggle, but to my line of thinking that seems like some sort of button in game to change one's fertility state. I think more along the lines of either:

1. Mating mechanics where a man and woman have to say something like 'baby' for the woman to have a second child (note... the trailer says that the second player, and only the second player, on the server will be a baby), or for a first child if the woman is not an Eve. Or the man and woman have to touch each other for a child to get produced for a second child, or first child if the woman is not an Eve.

2. A birth control pill to stop any births from occurring. That would be more situations than a woman just birthing babies over and over again.

Keyin wrote:

Instead of me leaving babies to die and get reborn to another willing person, we could skip that step entirely with a fertility toggle. They would get the child right away instead of it needing to die first. Saves everyone time.

It does seem possible to me also that such could happen sometimes, and how many babies might get born to someone else than a woman on horsecart with some form of birth control?

Morti · 2020-02-25 17:09:34

What if two players consent to a relationship and it, increases, the odds that the woman has a child?

It doesn't have to be necessary, but I see no reason it couldn't be an option.

And even if two players, swearing their love for each other, doesn't impact the mechanics of fertility, what harm is there in recognizing that bond by giving both players a little addendum to their name that says who they are partnered with? I don't see any harm in that, but I'm sure those that want to do so, would appreciate it.

Morti · 2020-02-25 17:13:25

And it would add an ... interesting element, to the stories of the game, when people use the words "my husband" or "my wife" when retelling stories.
And people who have played as men, then have a recognized reasons, to refer to newborn players of their spouse, as, their sons, or daughters, as well.

Spoonwood · 2020-02-25 19:11:24

Morti wrote:

What if two players consent to a relationship and it, increases, the odds that the woman has a child?

Women don't have a way to opt out of having children reliably (while remaining alive). So, the conditional "If two players consent to a relationship and it, increases, the odds that the woman has a child, then women don't have a way to opt out of having children reliably." holds as true. So, on your assumption, it still holds that women don't have a way to opt out of having children reliably.

At the end of the day, (p->(q->p)) is still a logical law.

Morti wrote:

And even if two players, swearing their love for each other, doesn't impact the mechanics of fertility, what harm is there in recognizing that bond by giving both players a little addendum to their name that says who they are partnered with?

If there's no impact to the mechanics of fertility, then fertility still happens without the mother having a way to opt out of having a child. Also, it would be more likely that people playing male characters would think about their fertility in game to a greater extent under your proposal. I think that people playing male characters would to a greater extent feel childless in game. Though, of course they already are childless in game.

So, what you propose I think more likely to make players more aware of how hollow and shallow the whole reproduction mechanics of the game are, and even more likely to condemn claims as this thing as any form or 'art' worthy of the name. People have had complaints as female characters about not having children, since all children have only had one and the same basis: other humans playing them. People playing as male characters would have the same sort of complaint, so there would likely exist more complaints since every child must originate from the same situation, some person logging in.

Your proposal might have more promise if there were more situations for children such as them being bots (and different types of bots). But, the design of this game is that of a finite unique situation generator, and apparently fewer situations for players is valued over more possible as evidenced by changes or constants such as tool limitations, all servers running the same, forced reproduction mechanics, Rift-like thinking, trying to make as many players as possible helpless from the get-go, a finite and small number of families at a particular time, throwing players into the same context as much as possible (bigserver system, trying to keep everyone close together in general), lack of expansion of technological options, mono-climate living areas with static temperature, one water source per town, players not having the ability to get re-born into the same spot in the large population context as once did happen via Eve-chaining (Eve-chaining on the larger populated servers is a different situation than starting as a baby of some parent), no way to start over ab initio as a matter of choice, and one and only one person working on the code and design of the game.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2020-10-15 23:09:14)

One Hour One Life Forums

#26 2020-02-10 03:37:12

Re: Raped by The Machine

#27 2020-02-10 03:41:23

Re: Raped by The Machine

#28 2020-02-10 04:22:26

Re: Raped by The Machine

#29 2020-02-10 04:45:34

Re: Raped by The Machine

#30 2020-02-10 05:27:35

Re: Raped by The Machine

#31 2020-02-10 15:17:57

Re: Raped by The Machine

#32 2020-02-10 16:03:08

Re: Raped by The Machine

#33 2020-02-10 16:17:14

Re: Raped by The Machine

#34 2020-02-10 18:59:26

Re: Raped by The Machine

#35 2020-02-10 19:32:13

Re: Raped by The Machine

#36 2020-02-10 19:35:25

Re: Raped by The Machine

#37 2020-02-11 01:02:03

Re: Raped by The Machine

#38 2020-02-11 02:05:46

Re: Raped by The Machine

#39 2020-02-11 06:42:10

Re: Raped by The Machine

#40 2020-02-11 09:07:01

Re: Raped by The Machine

#41 2020-02-11 09:10:15

Re: Raped by The Machine

#42 2020-02-12 03:11:21

Re: Raped by The Machine

#43 2020-02-12 10:47:30

Re: Raped by The Machine

#44 2020-02-25 01:25:11

Re: Raped by The Machine

#45 2020-02-25 03:01:48

Re: Raped by The Machine

#46 2020-02-25 07:59:17

Re: Raped by The Machine

#47 2020-02-25 17:04:18

Re: Raped by The Machine

#48 2020-02-25 17:09:34

Re: Raped by The Machine

#49 2020-02-25 17:13:25

Re: Raped by The Machine

#50 2020-02-25 19:11:24

Re: Raped by The Machine

Board footer