ferrousseat

[ferrousseat]

Concept: a gaming company with the tagline:

Fun, without the addiction

call it something sweet and low-key like Meadow Games (as in touching grass)

The games are aesthetic but boring. Still a little bit random reward stuff, but without the constant limited edition events that make you feel like you're gonna miss out if you take a break

It won't make a ton of money but it won't require as much work as games that have a weekly hard deadlines that make workers burn out.

#mine #phone games #computer games #pc games #gaming

[ferrousseat]

Andrew Tate BBC interview (pt 1?)

Andrew Tate fans have been telling everyone to see the full BBC interview, so I'm trying to transcribe it so you can without giving him extra views

except transcription takes forever when you're a perfectionist especially a perfectionist with an offline life, so I probably won't actually finish until long after the investigation is complete.

BBC: We are doing an interview with you because you're facing some very serious allegations-

AT: Correct

BBC: -rape, human trafficking-

AT: Yep

BBC: -and also because there's a great deal of concern about the things you say and the impacts that they have on young people or women

AT: I don't think the concern's about the things I say, I think the concern is for the level of influence I have and the reach I have. I would argue that a lot of the things that are already out there inside of the "legacy media", "the matrix" as a whole are far more damaging than the things I say

Those who don't know Tate probably will find his word choice odd without not thinking much into it. His followers are going to see this as a cleverly subtle callout, possibly attributing this to a greater plan to use the interview as bait to trap the BBC into proving whatever claims Tate has made about the media, while everyone else will see this statement as a deflective tu quoque.

From this, he's already setting a combative tone, which also helps frame this for his followers as a debate where the interviewer needs to score points to win, not an interview where Tate needs to answer questions.

BBC: Concern about the influence you have being a harmful influence, but let's start with the allegation

Here Williamson acknowledges his initial objection but redirects him back to the allegations.

AT: Not necessarily a harmful influence, the fact that I have, I am massively influential over the youth, and I understand that, but it's my influence as a whole which people are afraid of, not necessarily the things I've said.

He completely ignores the allegations and emphasizes his influence, claiming that it extends beyond youth and is powerful enough to cause fear. I would speculate that he's trying to demonstrate the whole capable-of-violence thing and assert dominance or something. To his community, this is a flex. To regular folks, inspiring misogynistic harassment and violence is not a flex, it's incriminating.

Now Williamson starts to use prompts to get him back on topic.

BBC: Let's start with the allegations. Have you raped anybody?

AT: Absolutely not.

BBC: Have you trafficked anybody?

AT: Absolutely not.

BBC: Exploited any women-

AT: Absolutely not

BBC: -for money?

BBC: But you HAVE admitted using emotional manipulation to get women to work in the webcam industry for you.

AT: No.

Archived copy of his website

AT: Firstly, let's- let's begin at the- Let's start at the beginning. I'm facing charges—the one- the first one you mentioned, the rape one's already thrown out by a judge because of no evidence.

The closest I could get were allegations from 2015 that blame police for mishandling the investigation resulting in the failure to gather sufficient for a case. There's no mention of the case making it far enough into the court process for a judge to throw it out, only that the investigation was delayed and abandoned. This doesn't prove his innocence. Mishandling of rape investigations is pretty common.

AT: Secondly, it's very difficult for me to sit here in a very frank and honest conversation with you while we're in the territory of Romania about a legal case that's going on within Romania. I have to protect myself. I've agreed to do an interview with you, and I want to be as honest with you as possible, but I can't incriminate myself in any way, I have to be very careful what I talk about.

BBC: There are no charges yet

AT: Correct, there are no charges

BBC: A judge has said-

AT: There are no charges

BBC: -that more evidence m(?)-

At: and I've- and I've agreed to speak to you, but I have to be as honest and frank as I can while also protecting myself, AND following my legal counsel.

BBC: So let's talk about what you've said yourself, then. You have said, on the website for your ORIGINAL website for the Hustlers University, that you emotionally manipulated women to fall in love with you, so that you could get them working in the sex industry for your financial gain.

Reminder, archived copy linked above.

AT: As I said, I have to be very careful what I say, but let's put it this way: no women are coming out against me and accusing me of doing it.

BBC: Yes they are,

AT: No they're not,

BBC: Yes they are,

AT: No they're not. Who?

BBC is likely referring to the victims identified by anti-organized crime agency DIICOT.

BBC: This testimony from the current investigation-

AT: The current investigation which I cannot discuss

BBC: -there are other women (?)-

AT: which I know intimately and you don't, I can tell you right now that the la- the women who are in this case file, there are two American women who have been caught already admitting they're lying, and then nobody else is accusing me of anything.

BBC: To begin with, it's very common in cases like this that the alleged victims do not always see themselves as victims.

Referring to Beatrice and Iasmina, who also bear tattoos declaring themselves the property of Tate. BBC could've clarified that declaring yourself not a victim doesn't count because there's Stockholm syndrome / destructive cultism disorder, there's brainwashing, but the most common issue is that most people have a narrow idea of victims as weak, passive people, and have difficulty thinking of the survivor who fought back or continued to function "normally" (on trauma drive) as a victim. The cognitive dissonance between victimhood and one's pride and self-image can cause the brain to reject the victimhood and fill in the gaps with concepts like "I wanted this": this does not erase the trauma, however, because the body keeps the score.

The prosecutors seem to have reason to believe that Tate's messages, even ones exchanged with Beatrice and Iasmina, will speak for themselves so take that how you will, too.

AT /s: Well that's very interesting. It's actually going to be interesting, because if I was… a "matrix"-controlled… organization, my goal was to slander somebody and try to destroy their name, you're telling me that they've chosen a crime which 1) is heinous, of course, because it damages the person's credibility and 2) you're saying that even if everyone else involved, if you have five people and everyone's sitting there saying, "No, nobody's hurt anybody, we like Andrew, we've all worked together, we're friends, etc."-

Only two victims have spoken positively about Tate. I want to note that in the Larry Ray case, the deprogramming of the victims didn't happen overnight, so I don't think he's saying anything particularly gamechanging here.

This is his second attempt at the tu quoque to insinuate the BBC is out to get him. Your impression relies entirely on whether you believe he poses a threat to the news industry. It should be noted that broadcasting opinions in response to news is not the same thing as reporting news.

This is also the point when Williamson starts to interrupt him back (I know she has ignored his interruptions to continue to finish speaking but I don't consider that interrupting). I'm guessing this, and the yes-no-yes-no exchange, is what his fans wanted people to see when they were chanting, "watch the full video," in the comments. I would concede that he got a rise out of her, but also… he didn't exasperate her by being the good guy here exactly.

AT: I'm- No-

BBC: That's not what anybody's saying

BBC: Let me read you some of the testimony from the current investigation (?)-

AT: Can I finish my- Can I finish, please?

BBC: -one of the witnesses said-

AT: Can- Can I finish, please?

BBC: You're not answering the questions I've asked you. You're not answering the question-

AT: I am answering the question. You're saying-

BBC: Let me read you the testimony of one of the witnesses

AT: Y- You're saying- You're saying the people who are involved in this, even if they say they're not victims, that they're still gonna try and attack me, pretending they're victims.

BBC: They are treated as victims by the case, that's ongoing, (let?) and not all of them are saying that. One of the witnesses says-

BBC staff: Lucy, we can't discuss that

AT: We can't- We can't go into the case. The case is open and active.

BBC: Well let's just be clear that not ALL of the witnesses in the case are behaving in the way you describe and even those that are, it doesn't bar them from being treated as victims by the prosecution, by the case.

AT: We have an open criminal investigation. I am absolutely utterly sure I'll be found innocent. I know the case better than you. I know intimately and you don't. I have seen all the criminal files and the evidence against me and you haven't. I know the truth of what happened and you don't. And I'm telling you absolutely and utterly I've never hurt anybody, that the case that's been put against me is completely and utterly fabricated. And I'm never gonna be found guilty of anything. And it's very difficult for me to answer your in-depth questions because we're sitting here inside of the territory of Romania, I'm beholden to the Romanian legal system, and I'm not going to incriminate myself because you're trying to probe me. You are wrong, and we're going to have to accept that for now and ask- and talk about something else.

Here he's claiming innocence but also saying that he has to claim innocence. People may interpret this either, "he must be innocent if he's willing to say all that,' or, "liars usually talk too much or too little and he's talking a lot," it's just how it is.

Either way, the source is basically Trust Me Bro. Journalists are held to certain ethical standards and legally liable for disinformation, and their only iron in this fire is public interest and safety. Tate is under house arrest and is legally liable for self-incrimination. He has to lie if the truth makes him look bad. So we're back to square 1.

BBC: Let me read you then what YOU have said about-

AT: Sure

BBC: -what you have done.

AT: Sure

BBC: YOU have said, "My job was to meet a girl, go on a few dates, sleep with her, get her to fall in love with me to the point where she'd do anything I say, and then get her on webcam, so we could become rich together."

AT: I don't think that's what I personally said, I think that's -

BBC: That's exactly what you said (?)

AT: No, that's- that's- that's- No, I've never said that, that's something that you FOUND on the internet, doesn't mean I've said it, and-

Well, even if someone else physically typed up the words on the archived snapshot of his website, he OK'd it, for one.

I don't have time to comb through podcasts, Reddit, TikTok, YouTube, etc. looking for what he may or may not have deleted that can link him physically to saying these things with his own mouth, but for me, the website's enough to make it believable that video/audio proof exists or existed.

BBC: (?)

AT: -AND AND again, once again, if any female on the planet has a problem with me, I strongly recommend her to go to the police and try and pursue me for criminal charges. It's actually very interesting that me, one of the most famous people in the world who's been vilified by the "legacy media" in places all over the internet, while everyone's attacked me from every single angle, while federal agencies from multiple countries have called over 2000 women who know me, we stand here with zero new accusations simce my arrest, ZERO. If you took any famous person, any man of substantial wealth, and you call 2000 women who knew him, they'd find an ex-girlfriend who's upset, somebody wants money who's upset, they called 2000 people who knew me and could not find a single woman to make a new complaint-

Well, these are "2000" people outside of the 2 British women and up to 4 victims that aren't B&I. So "upset girlfriends" have already turned up. Also, narcissists are on good behavior with the majority of people in their network and direct their abuse to select scapegoats under their control (or that they're trying to control), so him not sexually abusing other women and harassing women no more than is socially acceptable doesn't mean anything.

BBC: You're being (?)

AT: The only com- The only complaints they have against me are the initial complaints, which we can prove are lies, AND that's where it stands. So I d- I'm not gonna sit here and allow you to pretend that I'm some kind of evil predator when actually I'd argue the fact- I'D ARGUE the fact that people who've been investigated to the level I've been investigated to, if you take the average man on the street and investigate his entire life for 14 months, call everyone who's ever known him, and vilify him in the media, and encourage people to come forward for money, and you try to contact every ex-girlfriend-

BBC: You think somebody-

AT: -he has ever had

BBC: would come forward and accuse those people of rape, and accuse those people-

AT: I THINK THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A LOT MORE-

BBC: -of manipulation

AT: I THINK THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A LOT MORE FLAK THAN I'VE GOT, I'm actually such a nice person that I've never-

Aand now he's attacking the interviewer while claiming to be nicer than her. I don't think they even included this clip on BBC, at least not on the tiktok version.

BBC: The BBC has spoken to somebody-

AT: -had anyone come at me

BBC: -since your arrest, who says exactly those things, that with you, it's all manipulation, there's an ulterior motive-

AT: Is this Sophie?

BBC: -to everything you've done-

AT /s: Is this "Sophie"? [air quotes]-

BBC: [nodding]

AT /s: -Oh, Sophie, the- the-the fake name, no face, no (?)…

BBC: "I was so intent on wanting-"

AT /s: -STORY that was invented

BBC: "-to please him and wanting him to be happy, that I was just kind of, 'Yeah, OK, do whatever you want.'"

AT: And what is she accus-

BBC: -(?)

AT /s: Has she accused me of a crime, this imaginary Sophie?

BBC: She's making the point that there is-

AT: Has she accused me of a crime.

BBC: -emotional or psychological manipulation-

AT: I'VE ASKED YOU A QUESTION, and I've allowed you into my house-

BBC: I'm asking YOU a question.

AT: CORRECT, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS HERE. Because I've allowed you into my house-

BBC: I'm asking you the questions.

AT: Correctly, and I'm telling you.

BBC: You get to decide the answers.

AT: No! We are equal here, I've allowed you into my house. You don't come here with a position of authority. I'm doing you the favor as "legacy media" giving you relevance by speaking to you.

Tate is under house arrest. This is an interview of Tate by BBC, so it would be a bit irregular for Tate to be asking questions, especially, as he claimed, he is more intimate with the details of the case. Interviewers don't usually provide information that's new to the interviewee. When they state information or claims, it's to give the interviewee a heads up so they know exactly what is being asked, and to provide the listeners with some context. The interviewer isn't even saying that the statement is true or not (even if it is true), they're just saying, "this is the assertion/situation that my question pertains to, that I will be asking you to address." So it's asinine to try to reverse interrogate a news reporter who's just conducting an interview or accuse them of bossing you around. This is standard operating procedure for interviews.

A couple more thoughts.

Tate keeps talking about "allowing" to posture for his followers. The "relevance" line is part of this, too. I don't think I need to explain why it's delusional to claim that the BBC needs Tate for relevance. Personally, before this week, I only heard him name-dropped once in a blue moon, even while being fairly active on social media. I think I even had him confused with Joe Rogan before this week. But the BBC, I know. They're considered a fairly factual source of current news and are also known for educational documentaries. The comparison is not even close.

They say that to the privileged, equality seems like oppression. A woman telling him how interviews are supposed to work is "bossing him around".

AT: And I'm telling you now. This Sophie which the BBC has invented, which has no face of, nobody knows who she is-

BBC: The BBC did not invent

AT /s: Of course not. And she, because you never invent anything, and she is not fi- she has not filed criminal charges against me, what are we talking about here?

It shouldn't need to be said that anonymization is standard practice with victims of violent crime, especially female victims who traditionally get criticized more heavily than the perpetrators.

I'm actually super tired and have a number of more productive things that need doing so I'm not sure I'll finish transcribing, if I do it will probably be a whiiiile and the case may be long resolved by then LOL but you know what, I tried.

I think I missed a line during one of the parts where they were overlapping each other, where there's 2 BBC lines in a row, but I don't think he really said more than a few words, so if I'm gonna correct it, it'll have to be later.

#misogyny #rape mention #sex trafficking mention #bbc andrew tate #andrew tate bbc #bbc tate #tate bbc

[ferrousseat]

Not posting this as a reblog because I don't want to screw with somebody else's notes, but the whole "theological implications of Tolkien's orcs" business has some interesting history behind it.

In brief, a big part of why the Lord of the Rings Extended Universe™ is so cagey about what orcs are and where they come from is that later in his life, Tolkien came to believe that orcs as he'd depicted them were problematic – albeit not because of, you know, all the grotesque racial caricature.

Rather, he'd come to the conclusion that the idea of an inherently evil sapient species – a species that's incapable of seeking salvation – was incompatible with Christian ethics. Basically, it's one of those "used the wrong formula and got the right answer" situations.

In his notes and letters, Tolkien played around with several potential solutions to this problem. (Though contrary to the assertions of certain self-proclaimed Tolkien scholars, there's no evidence that he ever seriously planned to re-write his previous works to incorporate these ideas.) In one proposal, orcs are incarnated demons, and "killing" them simply returns them to their naturally immaterial state; in another, orcs are a sort of fleshy automaton remotely operated by the will of Sauron, essentially anticipating the idea of drone warfare.

Of course, this is all just historical trivia; any criticism of The Lord of the Rings must be directed at the books that were actually published, not the books we imagine might have been published if Tolkien had spent a few more years thinking through the implications of what he was writing. However, the direction of his thoughts on the matter is striking for two reasons:

Tolkien's orc conundrum is very nearly word for the word the problem that many contemporary fantasy authors are grappling with fifty years later. They want epic battles with morally clean heroes, and they're running up against exactly the same difficulty that Tolkien himself did – i.e., that describing a human-like species who are ontologically okay to kill is an impossible task.

After all the work he put into solving this impossible problem, one of Tolkien's proposals was literally just "what if they're not really killing the orcs, they're just sending them to the Shadow Realm?"