2025-10-09 14:24:50
It was gonna just be a blog post - a thoughtful way for working through divisive issues with people you care about, partially in the hopes of bringing them over to my side.
I wrote 1,408 words, about 600 of them regarding a small portion of only one issue, the rest being about my formula for how divisive issues could be discussed.
I told my bestie about it.
I thought later about how helpful it could be.
I started thinking about what an introduction for this book would be.
I started a libreoffice document and wrote that introduction.
I turned that into chapter 1 and wrote another section for the chapter.
I'm not committing to this book. But I'm interested in it. I might decide to make it a blog post after all. I might keep writing. I don't know. But I'm kind of excited to find out where it goes.
The formula I considered for how to work through issues was basically this:
Hopefully you can see the value in that at least. Starting with listening and understanding a person's perspective, before getting into any factual knowledge. And it goes both ways.
For a right-leaning example:
Once again, we start with values, and we accept the beliefs as true. Only once we understand the other person do we move into facts. And then the listener gets a chance to do the same.
This may be a bit too formulaic and seemingly strict for conversation, but yaknow it's the starting point anyway, and I think the general concept will work well in book form.
2025-10-02 02:02:00
I sent the following feedback to Ubisoft (which hopefully makes its way to Nadeo).
Troll Cup today (Oct 1, 2025) was not a troll cup. It was a ridiculously normal cup, and it was quite boring. 2 or 3 players in my division said they were bored and quit. Several others complained of being bored. It should have been a regular cup. Last month's (Sept 1, 2025) was a better map but also belongs in regular cup, not troll cup. It was interesting tech (rally ice reactor) but honestly not a troll at all, and several other players shared the same sentiment in match chat last month.
And to be honest, cup of the day, in general, is so bland and boring. 90% of the time it feels like the same track I've already played over and over and over again. The tech, mixed, fullspeed, and other main track types that ya'll pick just aren't interesting. (though I do love the ice tracks pretty much every time)
Last year I played cup almost every day. This year, I've found myself losing interest in Trackmania because of how boring it has become playing, essentially, the same old track over and over.
And there's better tracks that come through map review. I used to submit tracks to map review myself and I'd play a lot of other people's good and interesting tracks, but the only ones that make it through are the boring ones. And on that note, I think the bar for map review is set way too high. I've never had a map reviewed by nadeo. I had two Shorts maps with about 50 reviews and a 4.0 average, and another with 36 reviews and a 4.0 average. I heard from other players that you needed even higher than 4.0. Some people had like 100+ ratings on their map with no nadeo review.
And I have two track of the day maps I submitted with about 3.5 avg rating, one with 27 reviews and the other 19 reviews. And I hear from people that you need like a 4.2 or 4.3 or better to even get a nadeo review. A rejection with feedback would be a bummer, but not even getting nadeo review is really frustrating.
I don't know if you all realize how brutal map review is, especially if you submit anything that's not entirely ordinary. It's demoralizing and discouraging, especially that Nadeo seems to have such a high bar to even review maps. And the sheer amount of time it takes to build a map (Pipe Safety took me 100+ hours, flippant took me about 40-50 hours, most my good maps take 20+ hours) has little bearing on how people will rate it. The actual quality of a map also has little bearing because many people just vote based on their personal tastes or a strict idea of what they think cup of the day should be.
And then once you've built your map, you need to spend literally hours submitting it to map review to get enough votes on it to matter. The only time you get enough votes to be worth submitting is when there's like a 20 minute queue time. And you need to submit probably 5 to 10 times. Otherwise you might get 2 or 3 votes at a time. Its been a couple months since I was last in map review, but the only time it is well populated since Shorts began is right before cup of the day, so the window for actually getting votes on the map is very slim.
And speaking of, Shorts tend to be fairly boring too, despite many super interesting tracks being submitted to map review. Some interesting maps make it through, but not very many.
It's also frustrating seeing the same (boring) mapper picked over-and-over again while my maps don't get reviewed and others' more interesting maps almost never get picked.
Anyway, I've been thinking these things for awhile. I mostly stopped playing cup of the day the last few months because of how standard (and boring) the tracks usually are, but I look forward to Troll Cup every month, but then today's was such a disappointment that I finally decided to send some feedback. Also, I think it's fine that there is a selection of standard (what i would call boring) maps. It just is so disappointing that there are so few non-standard (i.e. interesting) maps included.
Thank you for reading,
Reed (reedybear in game)
2025-09-19 05:22:00
White Supremacy is about forcing everybody to live a certain kind of life - heterosexual, 2-parent household, be Christian, submit to the man of the house, be a patriot, hold certain cultural values, among others. Being served by people of color and women is part of the domination sought by White Supremacy, but oppressing poor whites is part of it too.
To be clear - being straight, Christian, a patriot, or wanting a "traditional" life with a consenting partner is not White Supremacy. As long as your values apply to your own life and you respect that others will live differently, and support their freedom to do so, then you're not a Supremacist.
You're not necessarily bad or evil for being on the spectrum. I certainly was as a teenager and young adult, and I didn't even know it. When I first saw people posting about "Black Lives Matter" in 2012, my reaction was to go on Facebook and post that "All Lives Matter". (I'd have probably been a #2 at that time, but this was a #3 act.)
I thought my country was past racism, that we had fixed it with Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Act and the end of segregation. And rather than try to learn what BLM was about, I reacted, thinking it was anti-white, and opposed a modern civil rights movement.
My opposition - however ignorant, emotionally reactive, or well-intentioned - was a White Supremacist act.
So today I propose a spectrum of White Supremacy. If you find yourself on it, consider whether your position on the spectrum actually represents your values and what you want for the world. If not, then you need to reflect on your actions and opinions, and you need to learn about the things you oppose.
0 - Standing against White Supremacy with your vote, through discussions with friends and family, through protest, through advocacy in your workplace, by educating your children about America's Supremacist past, or through other means.
1 - Doing absolutely nothing to oppose White Supremacy. This allows it to fester and grow. You're part of the problem because you're not part of the solution. (Caveat: This is quite forgiveable if you are disabled or homeless or in an abusive relationship or facing some other hardship, in which case I might still class you as a #0.)
2 - Voting for White Supremacists for economic reasons or because you don't know they're White supremacists, falling for the fear-of-immigrants propaganda, falling for fear-of-gays propaganda, making excuses for White Supremacists, using slurs.
3 - Actively opposing measures that seek to end White Supremacy. (opposing Affirmative Action, opposing bills that improve access to voting, opposing bills that improve access to gender affirming care)
4 - Enacting or advocating for discrimination, segregation, suppression of civil rights, or suppression of speech about groups. (Trump, Charlie Kirk)
5 - Enacting genocide or advocating for genocide (Hitler, David Duke)
This list isn't perfect. If you're a #4 or #5, there's a good chance you're a bad person who wants to hurt or oppress others. If you're a #3, you might be an okay person who wants equality but you're on the wrong side and need to educate yourself. If you're a #2, then you probably are decent but need to educate yourself.
If you're a #1, then you also probably need to educate yourself more AND you need to get your feet in gear. Educating yourself can be very moving. Surrounding yourself with #0s can also be very moving.
If you're a #0, great job, keep doing what you're doing, don't burn yourself out, be kind and inviting and try to bring 1s and 2s into the fight against White Supremacy. You might even snag some #3s.
I think the #4s and #5s are a gross minority and they need to be opposed. I don't think there's any hope of converting them, and I don't think it's worth the effort.
And such a simplified list doesn't address how murky some things can be. Supporting a trans sports bans or opposing the right to choose abortion lands in #4. But you may be plenty progressive on other issues. Perhaps YOU aren't a #4 through-and-through, even if some of your positions are #4s.
Idunno. I don't have all the answers. I just made this shit up.
2025-09-13 02:22:00
I'm hot because of bigots saying trans people don't exist, that black women "stole" their positions from whites, because racial profiling is now legal, because our President blatantly and repeatedly violates the constitution, because of people saying that 10 year old rape victims should be forced to give birth, and so much more.
So when I hear that "we" need to lower the temperature, I hear victim blaming. I hear that we should stop trying to protect people. I hear that we should let the white supremacists win. No. YOU need to STEP UP, STAND UP, and get on the right side of history.
The White Supremacists need to back down, and their supporters need to turn against them.
That is how we lower the temperature, not by calming down but by fixing the problem.
Also Read: Mixed feelings about charlie kirk's death
2025-09-12 10:41:00
Bear with me.
I think Charlie Kirk was bad, harmful, and indirectly responsible for suffering and death. I think it's good that he is no longer preaching his white supremacist message. I think it's good that he is no longer advocating against trans existence. I think it is good that he is no longer encouraging harassment of women of color.
I don't think it's good that he's dead. I don't think it's good that somebody committed murder. I don't think it's good that his family suffered a loss or that the people at the event that day likely suffered trauma.
Is the good WORTH the bad? I don't know.
I wish the good could have come without the bad, without the violence.
I'm not happy about his death.
But I'm happy he's done promoting white supremacy. Both those feelings are in me, and it is ... unsettling.
On Charlie Kirk | Sam Schutte’s Blog
This post is a good read, worth hearing, worth considering.
But I want to challenge a message carried throughout it.
he never advocated for violence
...
But - do we want to live in a country where the bold, the opinionated and those who think differently than us must risk their lives to do so? I think not.
He did advocate for violence. Advocating for trans people's non-existence is advocating for genocide. Advocating for 10 year old rape victims to give birth is advocating for violence. Advocating for Jim Crow laws - "[Black People] were actually better in the 1940s" - is advocating for violence.
"Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge.” This is advocating for violence.
Sam, you raise good points that are worth considering, but you also whitewash his legacy. He didn't just "think differently than us". He advocated for deadly policies and a dictator who now runs our country. He was the figurehead of a white supremacist organization. Not a bold thinker. A White Supremacist.
Also Read: on Lowering The Temperature
2025-09-10 11:11:00
Currently (in the U.S.), you can incorporate an organization as a Not-For-Profit, a Corporation, an LLC, or one of a few other types of private for-profit corporations (specifics depend on the state).
If you incorporate, your bylaws dictate the governing structure, so worker-owned companies can be created and some do exist.
But my state has no formal legal apparatus for forming a worker-owned company or a community owned company, and I want one.
I want the official legal framework, along with administrative support (which private businesses and non-profits have). Then once some worker-owned and community-owned companies form, the government can give grants and contracts to these companies, which could encourage the growth of democratically-owned businesses.
It doesn't require tearing down capitalism, forcing any businesses to close or change their governing structure, and it isn't state-owned either. It just creates a new option that can be freely chosen by those seeking to start businesses.
I would support some city-owned and state-owned businesses (but not typically monopolies, except for some utilities like water or energy delivery, meaning city & state-owned firms would have to compete on the market), but that is another topic entirely.
Myy goal is to bring forward more socialism (as-in democratically-owned means of production), but in a practical and approachable way. If socializing goes well over the next decade or two, we could consider moving toward more heavy-handed socialization, but I think it's not necessary or realistic to jump to that right away. And hell, if socializing goes badly, we might reconsider.
