If you've ever seen Kitchen Nightmares, you've run into the same problem I have. The show is fine, whatever, but certain episodes would have been seriously elevated if Gordon Ramsay had been allowed to just take out some of those restaurant owners. I can't be alone in thinking that, right?

Last year we at CYS brought in the New Year with Wholesome Dog's Birthday Adventure. This year... this.

Disclaimer: This gets a little rancid.

Super Bonus Challenge: See if you can deduce which page of this storygame was written by Sent!

I discovered a thing that JJJ wrote. It told me all about this quiz-making shit. I followed the instructions, even though I disobeyed JJJ's opening lines by starting this WITHOUT a basic knowledge of any of that weird scripty shit he recommended. This was low-effort as all hell, don't ever use the classic editor for anything you care about.

AQIMFTBHOIA DLC: THE UPDATE DESCRIPTION

Since some of my questions contained outdated information and I needed to make sure everything was in working order, I unpublished this thing. Since I understand this to be something that generally fucks with ratings, I'm gonna add 5 more questions so you have more of a reason to rate it again. Also, every question now has a stupid answer. These are the ones that are so blatantly wrong/non-answers that they give you negative points... Some are better hidden than others. Aside from most of the endings being revamped, there are two new endings! One is for people who're spectacularly awful at quizzes, and the other is an ending for people who go off the beaten path... By being really  bad at quizzes.

No, I will not add a thing at the end that shows your score. If you want to know your score, you have to dick-measure in the comments yourself. Drill Sergeant Nasty has always been an accurate barometer for how well you did, in my eyes.

this is a loosely satirical and somewhat more gamey version of the game that isn't really a game. thanks to the creative juices of Bardockwest. The ORIGINAL: http://chooseyourstory.com/story/randomly-walk

In a strange world where World War I hasn't even happened yet, Law and order is the only accepted form of justice. Until NOW.

Enter Mild-Mannered Clifford T. Boot, 2nd class passenger on the world-famous vessel, the Titanic. Haunted by the shadows of his war-torn past, Clifford bought a ticket to the United States of America looking for a new life. But trouble always finds Clifford, and when an innocent widow and her child are kidnapped by a cult dedicated to resurrecting Napoleon, he has no choice but to return to his old ways and save them... Because for some motherfuckers, mass tragedy doesn't come soon enough.

I might read and comment on this later, I might not. I wrote the previous post mainly because your joke had introduced a contradiction to my brain that made it impossible to focus on writing about imaginary civil war robots in the remaining hours before I slept. The followup has been more reasonable so there is little way for me to argue with its details without being more autistic than I'm prepared for today.

This post confused me so I figured I would just write down my thoughts on this as it was interfering with my ability to focus on other things. Your hypothesis here is a bizarre one-- In fact you seem to be drawing a lot of conclusions separate from the evidence presented here that feel like they're missing significant steps in between, such as what your tulpa of a woke progressive would do with institutional power. Your link here refuses to load anything for me, but prior to the TL;DR you've said that there appear to be statistics which suggest a trend that more people who call themselves progressives don't also call themselves feminist. I am familiar with papers that report similar trends more broadly, predominantly in young people. The rest of this statement is colored entirely by what you've said with the qualifying statement, "My personal guess is".

You are presupposing a total synonymity with self-described identity and individual beliefs, which isn't necessarily how this works. Other papers are out there which suggest that Gen Z increasingly does not refer to itself as feminist, while central political axioms like whether women should vote haven't changed proportionally to how few people are now calling themselves that. Which leads me to believe it's something different to those wacky "wokes" opposing feminism just because they're... Muslim? I don't know what the implication you're getting at there is. Most Muslims and Catholics I know of do not ascribe to things that frequently get called woke. Similarly, while actual consistent membership in certain churches decreases around the united states, more people refer to themselves as "spiritual" or simply "Christian" rather than any particular denomination, or non-religious or agnostic rather than strictly "Atheist". And these ideas I think point to what the actual trend is.

Liberalism is an ideology. It is very old and very well-described, it is a firmly held position with prescriptive beliefs and values. It is also a normative position in a system that is experiencing considerable strain and turmoil. "Woke" is an adjective. There is no one woke ideology. Nobody seriously identifies as it except in jest. There is not a woke party, nobody running for relevant offices self-describes as a wokist. It's an ideology in the way that absurd polandball political ideologies are. The word had a very particular use once, (Notably still as an adjective, not an ideology,) before the word was appropriated to be an exonym for things not liked by reactionary movements around the world. Several mutually exclusive and actively opposed ideologies are "Woke", in the way that several distinct and contradictory genres of music were "Screamo" or "Penis Music" or "Elevator Jazz" or "Mumble Rap" before the spotify algorithm tried to diagnose all those words as actual concrete things that individual art pieces either were or were not. And much like Screamo, Penis Music, Mumble Rap, Elevator Jazz, they are all umbrella terms for "shit I don't like". 

"Progressive" is similar in its use as an adjective, but it is self-applied and more acceptable and communicable in an era where until recently both parties in the US were simply differing interpretations of liberalism. It tends to mean something close to liberalism with ideas from things people who oppose them would consider "woke". But it is still not an ideology, it is a descriptor of that ideology, that denotes a differing interpretation from the median position. Progressives overwhelmingly tend to identify as liberals on normative positions like how the state functions because they appeal to the systems of governance where they currently reside for votes and political capital. So it could be argued that in practice progressives are liberals, merely progressive ones, which makes its presence as a modifier very obvious. It is not an ideology any more than "moderate" is. A moderate what? A funny example I always think of is how people who view their ideal political system as things that will in some way be inevitable after the fall of the current one will sometimes become accelerationists-- But there are, for example, accelerationist monarchists and accelerationist anarchists, both with highly contradictory beliefs about what will happen in the sudden and total absence of the current power structures-- They just share the belief that the current structure will inevitably fail and think it best to hasten the downfall.

Likewise, feminism is not simply a political ajective as it once might have been but a series of defined movements and political assertions throughout history, with organized philosophers and lists of beliefs behind it. And a lot of people might agree with a lot of these beliefs, but not all of them. Somebody might agree with a lot of the doctrine of one church denomination, but will find that there are simply some irreconcilable dealbreaker beliefs that come with the confirmation classes (or, more likely, the publically available soteriology people only get breif fragments of) that cause them not to believe in them.

There's also the actual social and mental conditions of these people who are either believing or not believing these things to take into consideration here. People are, statistically, not reading books anymore, most of the time. Education for young people is in the toilet, simultaneously underfunded, increasingly understaffed, and also highly litigated and restricted. Most kids these days (as well as their parents if we're being honest) take in most of their information from social media, where every facet of identity someone attaches to themselves is treated as an assertion to be constantly argued, or a mark that someone is on one team or the other. Kids increasingly do not really know what being a feminist or a liberal is, because the definitions are constantly in flux with people redefining and recontextualizing the definition based on what makes their preferred ideologies look good. The very word Woke is this boiled down to a perfect alchemical essence that can be used to smear anything offensive to the status quo-- It has a more consistent meaning here in the states because one ideology has been deeply entrenched in our political system for a very long time, but in a place like Australia for example, all the primary parties both progressive and conservative will accuse each other of being "woke" one moment and "politically incorrect" the next, as long as it's a useful excuse to paint the opposition as disreputable.

And so what is the current consensus? We live in a world where most people are aware that the ideologies people have come up with in the past have death tolls associated with them. We are more familiar with the spectacular failures of history than any particular successes, because they make the best memes and tiktoks. Most of the first world also lives under Liberalism, and increasingly feels like it is failing them. Gen Z has grown up being, for the most part, taught by online and offline social convention that women are fully fledged and independently-functioning human beings, but also taught by the internet that feminists are cringe, shrill caricatures that people on the internet make fun of, whether or not they themselves share central beliefs within feminism. Young people will occasionally attach those labels to themselves to see where their true identity lies, but they will tend to avoid particularly controversial and especially "uncool" ones along the way there.

Labelling yourself any one thing on the internet tends to be more trouble than it's worth, and it comes with homework so you can know in detail what you're actually calling yourself and who you're associating with-- (Especially feminism, which has sharply splintered between different factions and lost control of its own narrative in public perception, similar to how liberalism split into Republican and Democrat ideologies decades ago, which are both increasingly unpopular with young people.) So people increasingly simply don't call themselves that and simply use descriptors based on which way they lean. Unless this evidence is something very different and it actually is, literally, what you've phrased as an extrapolated conclusion in which case it's an interesting data point in the bigger picture of things. But because there are other studies like this that seem to have similar conclusions, I would argue that it is not evidence of one nebulous faction within one side of politics being more sexist than the other, it is evidence of a trend of general belief structures falling away from the modernist period where people strongly adhered to and advocated for prescribed ideological frameworks, and returning to a primordial soup of philosophies.

I didn't expect it would take this specific argument for your ideas to clash with science outright, but here the cope comes out.

Because I have reading comprehension! And if I were curious, I would have asked the same question she did and been equally annoyed as everyone else re-explaining the question to you like a toddler.

She's not asking about what's already been said, she has already read that and used it to formulate this question. She wants to hear what you're not saying, what you keep attempting to end the conversation to avoid saying, whether due to your fear, or your intellectual cowardice, or simply as the instinctual side effect of living the mechanistic and thoroughly unobserved existence you have been so far. You have told us all what you feel, and we have found it truly confounding. You are being asked to question yourself, and examine why you might feel that way. Use your own words, if you're physically capable.

That would be one thing if those were Satan's words, but there is no Capital S Satan of the Bible. The idea of a Satan was an abstraction and a teaching tool used by far later christians. The guy who told Eve to eat the apple was literally a snake, the reason he's there is part of the creation mythology to explain why snakes are like that and animals don't talk anymore. To presuppose that the snake was Satan would create flagrantly insane subtext, like God punishing an entire species of animals to squirm around on the ground because of something a sapient supernatural creature did while pretending to be one.

Look, do you want opera composers to be able to write parts for male sopranos or not!?

Goodness this is a miserable thread, it gives me indigestion to read. That all input is met by the mechanistic and cyclical meanderings of an unthinking creature with a disemboweled soul, his very being stunted and twisted like a bonsai tree around the wires of backwards and often recently invented dogmas. Like a conniving cancer cell he must push himself and others toward this skeletal existence that has no room for the actual, many-faceted reality which these teachings were meant to prepare and adapt humans for. If I believed that this was the nature of God, I would have tried to off myself, too.

Turkish? Um, sweetie, I think you'll find that's extremely problematic. Cel might have been Assigned Kebab at Birth but his preferred slurs are Honkey/Cracker.

Oh god it's you again. Stop doing that, you gormless freak!