Random stuff

Modern rhetoric:

Talking about Strauss and Tnuva's monopoly like it's a trick by the joos to poison America and not, like, a major issue in Israel that Israeli farmers are constantly fighting against?

Treating the fact the "remilk" products are labelled in Israel as lab made but not in America as if that's an Israeli plot to poison them? And not the fault of the American government, FDA and the billionaires who run the food companies?

She literally used the word goyslop at the beginning. If anything American products are what's poisoning the rest of the world.

People literally commanding about the "well poisioners" being "at it again".

That's one of those question where the answer hovers somewhere between "no, with a couple of massive caveats" and "yes, but not in the way most people think".

A lot of AD&D 1st Edition's GMing practices are pretty hardass by modern standards; however, they need to be understood in the context that the game's authors were writing for a target audience who mainly played the game in college wargaming clubs, where players would frequently transfer between groups and group sizes tended to be very large – six players per GM was considered a bare minimum, and up to a dozen player characters in a single party was by no means unheard of!

In particular, players would often bring their character sheets with them when hopping between groups, and it was considered a faux pas for a GM to reject an incoming player's existing character or request any substantive changes be made, so managing expectations could be quite challenging; even as late as 2nd Edition, the Dungeon Master's Guide contains extensive discussion of how to gracefully handle players bringing existing characters with them who aren't necessarily a good fit for the present game's tone or resource economy.

The upshot is that the culture of play these iterations of Dungeons & Dragons are targeting inherently obliges the GM to take a much firmer hand to keep things on track than a pickup game that draws players exclusively from within the GM's established friend group might – and to be sure, some GMs abused these expectations to act like petty tyrants, but some contemporary GMs do that, too.

A big part of the modern perception that 1E and 2E were extraordinarily player hostile, meanwhile, has nothing to do with the previously discussed GMing practices; rather, it emerges from the transition away from that culture of play in a slightly unexpected way.

In brief, back when D&D was mainly played by wargaming clubs, it was fashionable to run pre-written adventure modules competitively at conventions; the competition wasn't between players, but between parties, with multiple groups running the same adventure in parallel to contend for prizes. Tournament play sometimes chose its winners based on the fastest real-time completion of the module in question, or set specific objectives within the module which would award points when completed, a bit like speed-running or achievement-hunting in a video game (though neither practice existed yet at the time).

It was the survival module, however, that quickly emerged as the most popular tournament format. In a survival tournament, each player would provide or was furnished with a binder containing a fixed number of pre-generated character sheets, switching to the next character sheet in the set as each preceding character died; the winning group was the one whose last surviving character's corpse hit the dirt furthest from the dungeon entrance.

Many of 1E's most popular adventure modules, including the infamous Tomb of Horrors, were originally written as survival modules to be run at tournaments in conventions. As such, they were designed to kill off player characters both quickly and efficiently, so as to reduce the likelihood that the tournament would run overtime and get kicked out of the convention venue. When they were later cleanup and repackaged as commercial adventure modules, their text rarely bothered to explain any of this – who doesn't recognise a survival module when they see one?

The answer to that question, of course, is kids who didn't come up through the mentorship system of the college wargaming clubs, but taught themselves how to play D&D from first principles using books they bought at their local hobby stores – and when D&D's popularity unexpectedly exploded in the early 1980s, there were suddenly rather a lot of them!

If anyone is ever training you to replace them in a position and tells you 'its an easy job I don't do much' what this means is that you are about to spend six months to a year catching up on all the stuff they didn't do and sorting out the stuff they did poorly.

Rainbow Valley, for all its macabre connotations, is also a literal trash heap.

Base Camp and ABC are worse. The entire route is lined with garbage.

The Sherpa population receive little credit for incredible amount of work they do, often doing most of the work of the climber or team so that the team takes all the credit. It’s true that there’s a monetary benefit for their communities, but their job is also one of the most dangerous in the world.

There are documented crimes on Everest. Theft and assault are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Theft of oxygen tanks and other vital equipment can seriously endanger climbers. Entire books have been written about this.

People have been left to die on the climb. In some places, depending on the altitude, it becomes unavoidable or near impossible to move someone down the mountain. However, there have been avoidable deaths, again well-documented. Some climbers even say they have something called “summit fever” where only the climb has meaning, and not their fellow climbers. 

So what should be done?

Well, for a start, I think it helps to actually fucking listen to the people risking their lives working on that mountain. They don’t want it closed, because again, their lives will be ruined if that happens, but they DO want better regulations about who goes on the mountain, and what happens there.

See, you need a permit to climb Sagarmāthā , one issued by either the Nepalese or Chinese government, depending on where you start your ascent. And yes, multiple governments being involved makes it even more complicated, but let’s just focus on the Nepal side of things for now; the Chinese route is a real bitch to climb compared to the Nepal route so it doesn’t have such a tourist problem, and also the first step to any real solution there is for China to stop fucking occupying Tibet. So let’s focus on Nepal.

The permits are a very good thing; you need to pay to be issued one, which brings in money to the country, and it’s just common sense to regulate how many people are going up there. What’s not good is that the Nepalese government isn’t doing a very good job of regulating the permit sales; guides have been complaining for decades now about the government selling way too many permits, overcrowding the mountain, and allowing wildly unqualified people to go. One of the main things the Sherpa guide community wants is for the Nepalese government to sell less permits for Sagarmāthā, and make the skill/fitness requirements stricter. One popular proposal is to change the rules so that you need to have climbed at least one 8000m peak to be eligible to get a permit for Sagarmāthā. Since eight of the fourteen are in Nepal, this would keep money flowing, since people would need to do multiple trips, and it would also scare most of the dumbasses away - they want to be carried up the most famous mountain in the world so they can brag about summiting Everest. Having to climb a harder mountain first would make that look a lot less appealing, especially since K2 is a hellish death trap, and none of the other 8000′s have the same name recognition. You can’t really brag to your buddies at the office about having summited Dhaulagiri or Manaslu the same way you can brag about Everest. So that proposed rule change would scare off the tourists, and ensure every single person on Sagarmāthā is an experienced mountaineer that’s already experienced the death zone, as opposed to the current issue of multiple people that have literally never climbed before buying permits to go up Sagarmāthā.

They also want better regulations for the guide companies that can be hired for Sagarmāthā - there’s a huge problem of tourists paying for the cheaper guide companies, not realizing that the whole reason they’re cheap is because they take extremely dangerous shortcuts in their equipment maintenance. Those companies are a massive problem, and the legitimate guides hate them. So, so much. They put their clients in danger, they put their employees in danger, and they put everyone on the mountain with them in danger.

Finally, the guides need better pensions and life insurance, because the Nepalese government has a real problem of not paying the families nearly enough when a guide dies on the job. That was the entire reason for the 2014 strike - an avalanche struck the base camp during the pre-season, killing sixteen of the Sherpas that were laying down ropes for the season. The Nepalese government offered to compensate the families of the victims with just enough money to cover the funerals, which infuriated the entire Nepalese mountaineering community. They demanded that the mandatory life insurance policy have its payout doubled in the future, more money to be given to the families of the avalanche victims, and government payment of medical bills for the wounded. None of the demands were met, and so they went on strike for the year. The government did agree to give more money to the families… provided they presented the appropriate documents in Kathmandu, which isn’t really feasible for most people living in the Khumbu region, making them angrier. The life insurance payout was also raised, but only by half the amount the Sherpa’s had demanded.

To summarize: shutting down Sagarmāthā will fuck over the entire economy of Nepal, leading to people dying and lives being ruined. Listen to the fucking people you’re trying to advocate for. They want the Nepalese government to sell less permits to climb Sagarmāthā, have stricter rules about who can buy the permits, tighter regulations for guide companies, and more government assistance for guides and their families after an injury or death occurs. And yes, Sagarmāthā is a sacred place to the Sherpa people, and their religious leaders want everyone off the mountain… but let’s be real here, that’s never going to happen.

So, if this is an issue you care about, and you actually want to do something instead of making vague, impossible demands to feel good about yourself online, what can you do?

For a start, begin calling the mountain Sagarmāthā instead of Everest. Everest was only used as a name because Nepal and Tibet were closed to outsiders when the British were surveying the Himalaya’s in 1800′s, so they were unable to learn the mountains real name. And the surveyors were surprisingly serious about labelling mountains with the correct local names, which is why Everest and K2 are the only standouts among the 8000 meter peaks - K2 is so remote it never actually had a name, and the placeholder label of K2 stuck, while Sagarmāthā was believed to be the same situation and given a name instead. The only reason it’s still called Everest is because that’s the name that became famous. Getting the proper name into common use might make things right. It’s about respecting the culture of the Sherpa’s… and it will also respect the wishes of Sir George Everest, who absolutely fucking hated the proposal to name the mountain after him, and fought tooth and nail to leave a placeholder and keep searching for a proper local name. The poor bastards been rolling in his grave for over 150 years now, let’s get his name off the damn mountain already.

For improving the actual conditions, push for the Nepalese government to make the changes the guides want. International pressure is necessary for that; if nobody cares about the Sherpa’s, the government can do as they please, and the guides just have to put up with it. Pay attention, raise awareness, advocate for their wellbeing, and, again, listen to what they actually need/want.

Finally, rookies climbers going up Sagarmāthā should be judged, and judged hard. They’re not impressive. They’re fucking idiots being carried up a mountain by the real professionals so they can claim bragging rights. If someone brags about climbing the tallest mountain in the world, ask about their climbing experience and training, and if they’ve ever climbed/considered climbing any of the less famous 8000+ meter peaks. If they’re not an experienced climber that respects the mountain, mock them relentlessly. They’re not impressive, they’re an idiot that burned their own money to be carried up a really big rock and steal the credit for their guides hard work.

That being said, also show respect towards the people that have died on Sagarmāthā, AND the people that have witnessed death on that mountain. I’m not going to blame anyone for bad decision making at 8000 meters of elevation. The death zone was named that because the conditions cannot support human life; you are slowly dying as soon as you enter, and the trick is just to get back down before you succumb to it. The human brain does not enjoy being slowly suffocated to death, and you sort of lose your shit as a result. That’s just biology, happens to everyone. There’s a reason why disasters high up on the 8000+ peaks are so confusing - there’s always multiple different stories about how events played out, because short term memory loss and delirium are a very common side effect of being at an altitude unable to support human life. That’s also a large part of ‘summit fever’ on those peaks; people genuinely cannot make rational decisions up there. It’s a well documented problem. A fair amount of lethal falls up there are technically suicides, as people get confused and wander off cliffs, or begin removing protective gear, or other things nobody in their right mind would do. That’s why so many people die attempting to summit after the cut-off point of it being too late to try - they can’t process that if they continue, conditions will become extremely dangerous on their descent. They can only understand that their goal is the summit, the conditions are good right now, so that means they’re fine and should keep going.

For those who need a refresher, this is what the polling looked like for the Maine Senate race in September 2020

It is April 2026. One of the nation's top doctors is openly saying the president is showing signs of dementia. Because the president is a Republican, the press continues to shrug and move on. Under two years ago, that same press got together to end Joe Biden's presidency because he had a stutter and a cold during a debate, despite the fact that 1) Biden's lifelong stutter is well-documented 2) he was able to perform several public events in the weeks after and was fine 3) he's still fine 2 years later and wouldn't be able to make speeches in 2026 if he had been dying of dementia in 2024.

The press never provided any proof of their accusations, and no, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's tell-all book didn't actually tell anything:

But it didn't matter that the book didn't provide any evidence that Biden had dementia, because the narrative had been set--actually all the way back during the 2020 campaign, first by Fox News, and like a lot of right-wing narratives, it gradually took hold and became the mainstream narrative. I said it before and I'm saying it again: if the media had actually been concerned about the president having dementia, instead of them knowing that they were full of shit and deliberately pushing Biden out of the White House to enable Trump, they would be having wall-to-wall, nonstop coverage about Trump's decline. They're not doing that because they like Trump and will never admit to what they did, in a similar way to how they've never owned up to the role they played in downplaying Trump in 2016 and focusing on "HeR EmAAAAAAiiiiiLLLLLsssss" instead.