Once upon a time, there was a zone called the Barrens. Everyone went to the Barrens for level 10, level 11, level 12, level 13, level 14, level 15, level 16, level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20.

And in the Barrens, there was a chat channel called Barrens chat. And talking in Barrens chat were all characters of level 10, level 11, level 12, level 13, level 14, level 15, level 16, level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20.

One day, an orc warrior leveled through Barrens and read Barrens chat for level 10, level 11, level 12, level 13, level 14, level 15, level 16, level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20.

He came up with an idea for a joke. And he told the joke in Barrens chat, and everyone level 10, level 11, level 12, level 13, level 14, level 15, level 16, level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20 heard the joke.

The joke killed. Everyone level 10, level 11, level 12, level 13, level 14, level 15, level 16, level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20 spammed the channel with laughter until the zone crashed.

A GM read the logs and figured out what happened. He contacted the orc warrior and said, "Don't you know what you did? You crashed Barrens and DCed everyone level 10, level 11, level 12, level 13, level 14, level 15, level 16, level 17, level 18, level 19, and level 20! I should ban you!

But I have to admit, that joke worked on so many levels."

I can't stop throwing money at Blizzard.

I realm-transferred my Troll Warlock and race changed to Forsaken because I had a great character concept. I don't RP, but I have concepts for all my characters.

The concept is still good, but it's the wrong character. And now I want to make him a Blood Elf.

Why? Why does this matter to me?

Damn it. If the level 90 Mage talents weren't so annoying to use, I wouldn't even be playing a Warlock. This is all their fault - they knew this would win them my hard earned pennies.

Here's a thing you can make that's easy, not very expensive, lasts a while, and makes a great snack:

Personally, I'd increase the amount of cayenne. The ones I made are good, but could stand to have a little more kick, and I did 1.5 teaspoons of cayenne. I'll try 2.5 in my next batch. Tastes will vary of course.

EDIT

2.5 seems about right. It could probably go higher, but this is enough to get a noticeable kick that kind of sneaks up. Much hotter and it'll limit the appeal for a lot of people.

I wrote this today:

“I don’t care what anyone believes, as they long as they keep it to themselves.” That’s the common refrain of modern religious apathy. When spoken today, the phrase is seen as the politest way to accept the apparently delusional beliefs of other religious groups. It is actually a stunning insult wrapped in so many layers of gentility and ignorance that even the deeply passionate miss its implications.

For one to say that one does not care what anyone believes is to say that other people simply do not matter. Others are welcome to have their little delusions, but they are so obviously foolish as to be beneath consideration. These other people are making tremendous assertions about the nature of reality, our lives, the question of mortality, and the concept of goodness, but their prattling falls on deaf ears. “I don’t care what anyone believes.”

Not only does the proverbial “I” not care, “I” isn’t interested in discussion. “I” doesn’t even want to hear these other ideas. There can be no debate, no education, no greater understanding. To “I,” your ideas are so far beneath consideration as to be unworthy of vocalization. Moreover, “I” asserts, you are a lost cause. You are not rational or intelligent enough to be convinced by any argument, and so “I” is untroubled by your fate. You are beneath concern.

Beliefs determine actions. Religion is the codification of beliefs. Thus, it is monumentally important that we understand religions if we are to understand why people act as they do. This is not a world of egos floating past one another with no impact or friction. We are trapped together in a world made ever smaller and more vulnerable by technology. I want to know about you, I want you to know about me, and I want us to understand each other. Ideally, I’d like for us to come to an agreement. Failing that, at least we can know why we disagree.

In Genesis 8:21, the Bible reports the following:

This innocuous passage was read by Representative John Shimkus on the March 25, 2009 hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. He cited this passage as the reason for his disbelief in the scientific fact of anthropogenic climate change. “I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect,” he added. I believe him. I want to know why he believes that. I want to know what actions those beliefs spur. Rep. John Shimkus did not violate the social pact by vocalizing the fact of his beliefs. He did us a favor. We understand his goals and his motives.

Ideally, I’d like to convince John Shimkus that his understanding of reality is fundamentally flawed, and that he needs to revisit his worldview. While I do not expect that to happen, as his worldview no doubt has layers of emotional infrastructure both supporting and relying on it, I would gravely insult him to say that he is not worth addressing. The United States was conceived through the ideals of the Enlightenment, which revered the metaphor of the Marketplace of Ideas. To fail to engage John Shimkus and his like would strangle the marketplace and result in an intellectual depression.

To an extent, we can see signs of that depression on the horizon. Whether because of outdated economic models or misplaced priorities in the general populace, journalism is a matter of popularity rather than accuracy. The politest discourse does not include anything about one’s most core beliefs. And while we have greater access to information than at any time in the history of humanity, sheer laziness and emotion lead us to either ignore or reject the available data.

We laud neutrality. We imagine that somehow those who stand removed from debates are above those debates, and that those with opinions and beliefs are like squabbling children.

“I’m spiritual, but not religious.”

“All politicians are corrupt.”

“My problem with religions and atheism is that they’re so certain.”

“I don’t care what anyone believes, as long as they keep it to themselves.”

This is not maturity. This is not grace. This is not balance. This is apathy, ignorance, arrogance, and laziness all laid bare. This is virtue only in its absence of depravity. This is the childish cry of disinterest at the prospect of education. This is naked cynicism.

Beliefs matter. Religion matters. I care what you believe, and if I think you are wrong I will tell you why. I have enough esteem for humanity to trust that you will hear me, and I will do you the same courtesy. Our emotions may lead us to become heated, possibly to exchange insults. After our discussion, we may even feel that the other’s opinions are not worth consideration. But at the very least, we’ve extended each other the courtesy of due process prior to reaching that verdict.

I care what you believe, and I don't want you to keep it to yourself.

Remember when I used to blog about interesting things?

No? Hey, fuck you. That's not nice.

Anyway.

I wonder if it's just because I've gotten older that I no longer feel the need to write essays about various political and philosophical points, or if that itch is scratched by having conversations on Facebook and on forums.

Is the itch getting scratched, or do I just no longer have the itch?

Well. Anyway. I promised a friend I'd write a book. I expect it will be more like a pamphlet. It's going to be about god: why there probably isn't one, why we don't need one, and why we shouldn't want one. That's how I'll organize it. Thinking of specific arguments I want to cover and a title. Most likely, this will be a thing I'll have someone print and I'll distribute a few copies to friends and family. Maybe I'll run it past a company, but I can see no reason they'd want to publish it and it's not really about that anyway. I just want to organize the arguments and toss in my two cents.

Then, when I'm done, I'll be able to say I wrote it. And then what's to stop me from writing other stuff?

You?

Ha!

I'd like to see you try.

(Please don't try. I have a very hard time motivating myself; I expect it'd be really easy to get me to not write anything.)

I'm reading the Prince Of Nothing series by R. Scott Bakker.

I'm about 60% through book 1 and I still don't know how I feel. The below is possibly a little spoilery. Here are the main characters we've seen:

You have one character who's a fantasy rationalist, sort of an objectivist in his philosophy, and reading from his perspective is really cool and interesting. It's all about reading cause and effect with uncanny precision and figuring how best to manipulate people. There's been a suggestion that he'll grow a bit to be less of an asshole objectivist and more of a decent rationalist, so I'm okay with his character. This is basically the thing keeping me going.

There's a barbarian who's completely immersed in tradition, but is smart enough to want out. He's been taken advantage of by a different objectivist type, so he's very suspicious of that sort of thing, but he's also intelligent enough to see the virtue in it. I enjoy reading from his perspective as well.

There's a sorcerer (sorcery in this world = blasphemy; it's literally speaking forbidden words and using one's will to "cut" reality) who's smart, but also really mopey and insecure. I normally don't mind insecure characters, but the moping annoys me. He's meant to be a spy for his School, but mostly he seems to be wandering around and moping.

There's an Emperor and his nephew, who are both paranoid egomaniacs. They're playing some intrigue game, which I'd normally be into, but this has mostly been tedious. Maybe it's just because I'm not that deep into the world yet.

There are a couple others who have shared brief moments of their perspective.

And then there's Esmenet. I have a real problem with her. So far, she's the only female whose perspective we see. Guess what her job is. Go ahead. Did you say prostitute? Of course you did, because of course she's a prostitute. There's also a really disgusting scene that almost made me quit reading where some crazy monster thing essentially rapes her (I mean, he paid, it wasn't clear that he was a monster until the end, and she didn't struggle, but it's very rapey), and the author goes to great pains to describe how orgasmic the experience is for her. Now it's clear that the reason it's so orgasmic is because of some fucked up magic the thing was using. Even so, many chapters later and it's still bothering me. So that thing happens, and she decides to do what? Find the guy she's in love with - Grand Magus Mopey up there - so she can warn him (the monster thing is after Mopey's School). All she does is have sex, think about Mopey, think about her dead daughter, and think about how impressed she is with everything because she's just some worthless whore and can you believe she gets to be involved in this craziness??

So far, it's been some pretty Frank Miller shit with this character. If she doesn't do a 180 soon, or if some foil isn't introduced, or some context isn't given, I think I might just quit this series.

EDIT

Reading a little further, we have a new female narrator - already raped before we see through her perspective, and turns out her profession is... prostitute? No, of course not. She was a concubine. I'm most of the way through this book, so I'm going to finish it, but if the ending isn't amazing I don't see myself finishing the others.

If you used to play WoW and you wanted to check out the latest changes without spending money, you can until September 19th.

Thank you, SG, for making me feel like I'm comparatively not that awkward around women.

Relevant link.

Alright, I made this up and I'm far too impressed with my own cleverness to not share:


What do Game of Thrones and Twitter have in common?

Boom. I'm a comedy genius.

I enjoy this way too much.

Make sure you watch 1:29