It was never about "war games," "aggression" or violence. Now that I've cooled down somewhat, here's the core issue: parental control (guidance). I thought that was obvious. It's not a "war game" -- as I attempted to communicate. And it's not the "usual fare," most people would expect. Slipping something like this past parental expectations, unintentionly even, *is* serious. Did I make all kinds of mistakes? Yes, and I had mixed motives, which I regret. I just don't see anyone pointing out the nature of this thing; so I *guess* it's up to me, an offensive idiot.
I want to be done with this, I really do. Consider blaming me for what I *actually* think; surely that would be better? YOU may I'm a waste of time, but I had to try. On Sun, May 25, 2025, 8:33 AM Jay F. Shachter <j...@m5.chicago.il.us> wrote: > > Esteemed Colleagues: > > An astonishing number of posts to this mailing list have appeared > lately because, apparently, there is a member of this mailing list who > is outraged that the OpenBSD distribution contains the source code to > a war game, and aggression is bad. > > (And he expresses his belief using obscenities, but let us not comment > on the irony of that, it is too easy.) > > It seems obvious that our aggressive instincts are not bad, because > they exist; and we would not have been given our aggressive instincts, > if we did not need them. Sometimes we need to kill animals that are > harming or threatening to harm our young, sometimes we even need to > kill other people, and anger is the emotion that facilitates our doing > that. > > The truth is, though, that you actually can make a coherent argument > against our aggressive instincts, which, since the original poster > (whom I will call OP, because I didn't pay attention to his name) > seems to be too inarticulate to articulate, I will present myself. > > We don't live in the world in which we evolved, because we have > created technology that has changed that world, so it is not > impossible that we have instincts which served us well in the world in > which we evolved, but which do not serve us well in the world in which > we now live. Anger is perhaps a good illustration of that very point. > When you are killing an animal or a person with your hands, or even > with a club, physiological arousal is helpful; nowadays, however, > most killing is done using tools for which we need a calm and steady > hand. Physiological arousal is unhelpful for that, in fact it is > detrimental. > > The problem with this argument, which the OP could have presented if > he had the mental ability to do so, is that it doesn't matter whether > our instincts are still needed, because we have them. So, for > example, an unfaithful wife threatens a man's genetic survival, > therefore men get upset when their wives are unfaithful. An > unfaithful pregnant or postmenopausal wife does not threaten a man's > genetic survival, but there's no way you can persuade a man not to be > jealous when his pregnant or postmenopausal wife is unfaithful. Not > even with the best logic. We have our instincts, even in the situations > where we don't need them. There's nothing we can do about that. > > Similarly, people like playing war games. Certainly some people like > it more than others, because there are individual differences in this > as in all other things; but people like playing war games. That is > why they exist (and we do not, moreover, live in a world where we no > longer need to cultivate the mindset that is developed by the playing > of war games; we still, very much, need to cultivate that mindset; but > it wouldn't matter if we didn't, people still like playing war games). > > But what the OP doesn't get, is not just the invalidity of the > argument against aggression that he was too inarticulate to > articulate. Far more important -- to the rest of us, anyway -- is > that the OP doesn't understand that you accomplish nothing by posting > an article to this mailing list that complains about a component of > the OpenBSD distribution. That's not what this mailing list is for. > You can post an article pointing out that some component doesn't > accomplish its intended purpose in the best possible way (although > that kind of posting is also of little utility unless you provide a > fix), but an article complaining that the component shouldn't exist, > is pointless. No one is going to remove that component, because the > OP doesn't like it. His repeated postings (there have been more than > one) will accomplish nothing. > > I do understand -- and even sympathize with -- the desire to complain. > Everyone likes to complain. I like to complain that whoever controls > the OpenBSD project is terrified of the ZFS patents, which I think is > pin-headed, and no one in the Linux or Illumos or FreeBSD or NetBSD > worlds is terrified of the ZFS patents, and said pin-headedness keeps > me from using OpenBSD for real work, because I work on multiboot > machines on which Solaris and Linux and FreeBSD and NetBSD are all > able to share, e.g., the same /home filesystem, because it uses ZFS. > I don't post articles complaining about that (unless the article is > mostly about something else, and I complain only briefly and in > passing, like I am doing in this paragraph) because they will > accomplish nothing. I posted one article asking about ZFS support on > OpenBSD, was told that it's not going to happen because the ZFS > patents are terrifying, and I accepted that. Complaining about > OpenBSD, on the OpenBSD mailing list, is pointless and stupid. > > Posting endless responses to pointless and stupid postings, is also > pointless and stupid. The OP's original article was pointless and > stupid, but why are so many people bothering to point that out? > Just as the OP is not going to change OpenBSD, articles on the OpenBSD > mailing list are not going to change the OP. It's not my place to > tell anyone what he should enjoy, and although I think that telling > people like the OP how utterly witless they are is a waste of time, > it is arguably not a waste of time if you enjoy doing it. But can you > please do it in private e-mails to the OP, and not on the mailing > list? A lot of people, I think, would appreciate that. > > > Jay F. Shachter > 6424 North Whipple Street > Chicago IL 60645-4111 > +1 773 7613784 landline > +1 410 9964737 GoogleVoice > j...@m5.chicago.il.us > http://m5.chicago.il.us > > "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" > >
