Sentrovasi

In case my deletion of the comment wasn’t federated: mb, I didn’t realise it was an image post.

People don’t really like to read the articles before commenting, huh.

Knowing Stardew was such a beloved game, I knew I had to get context before judging the author because it could be read both ways.

People who assume games not changing = criticism are telling us more about their own uncharitable view of others than anything else.

EDIT: That said, if I were to offer criticism, I feel like the author gives too much credit to Stardew as though it invented or pioneered the tight gameplay loop: perhaps at least some mention could have been made to Harvest Moon, the game from which Stardew borrows - and perfects - most of its major systems.

Also to be fair, it doesn’t go anywhere with that thought that Stardew hasn’t changed. Felt a little low-effort, like a retrospective on Stardew that just basically listed what people liked about it.

I think it’s an anti-riddle, or a joke, more than anything else.

Yeah, kinda puts paid to the idea that piracy is about sustainable, non-DRMed software for all when the one company whose niche is ensuring that such resources are available is being undermined like this.

How long? A week? More?

I saw this and immediately thought about Nicky Case’s game on The Evolution of Trust. I was really glad to see it was referenced in the video as the main inspiration for it!

(https://ncase.me/trust) - Link because I think everyone should try it for themselves as well.

Slay the Princess is a relatively light game (largely narrative) that has this as part of its conceit.

I think an echo chamber where everyone agrees that slurs and calls to genocide are bad is an echo chamber I’m fine with. We can argue the other stuff, but some things seem pretty cut and dry to me.

You’re wilfully applying a very stunted concept of “wanted” to a legal system that deals in fact. I’m not saying you don’t understand whatever it is you claim to be supporting. What I’m saying you do not understand is the concept of “wanting” and “mens rea” (as it applies in law, but also as it applies under your framework - you’ve chosen instead to just pretend it’s no longer relevant instead of redefining it under your framework - like I said, the laziest kind of science.) And there’s really no point in me repeating what I’ve said before.

Maybe what I’ll leave you with is a possible definition of “want” under your system, which is one step further in thought than it seems you’ve ever gone: an action is wanted if the action would have been taken with no immediate or overt external (needs to be defined) motivation. This means if they were abused as a kid and later this translated into abusing other people, they still wanted to abuse them.

(As a note, I’m not saying this is the correct definition, but this is what is needed for people to start discussing what should and shouldn’t be in this definition.)

Saying “nobody can want to do anything because determinism” is an incredibly lazy determinism because it’s starting with the axiom and then not bothering to come up with a proper framework to explain everything else in the world. If you continue to protest it not being lazy there’s really nothing else we have to talk about.

You don’t understand. Obviously everyone is a product of their environment. But after all of that, if the person wanted and intended to do something because of all of these different dispositions and upbringings and backgrounds, then they have mens rea.

Like I said before, it’s purely a finding of fact. Does it mean that there shouldn’t be mitigating circumstances? No, there might well be reasons to argue that they were only doing so out of desperation. Nonetheless, they had mens rea.

Recognising that there are all these complicated factors but not taking the time to at least make sense of them is the worst kind of determinism. Sure, there’s no free will in your conception. There still needs to be laws and concepts like mens rea still need defining to allow for the protection of “innocents” under the law.

Guilt and mens rea can be quite compatible with your admittedly strange idea of there being no free will (and yet trying to parse laws under a framework of people having free will), unless you believe that all acts are coercive (which is quite reductive).

All you need to ask yourself is if the person wanted and intended to do that, whatever the nexus of causes led up to them wanting to do the act.

It seems very weird (and a bit lazy) to subscribe to a framework of there being no free will and yet not even trying to contextualise the safeguards of the legal system to fit that framework. Sure you may agree with putting people in jail to prevent net societal harm, but mens rea is one of the checks to ensure that they will cause societal harm to others, and without being able to settle such a question of fact you will instead never be able to put anybody, even if they need to be put behind bars, there.

Singapore. And Singapore.

I think you’re free to believe what makes you happy :)

But making assumptions can be dangerous in science, and misconceptions, especially in the information age, can be very hard to disabuse. I’m happy for shows to not jump to conclusions just so twenty years later we’re not stuck with myths that may actually be harmful to how we understand the animals we all love.

Sega Saturn controller. Unplugged while my Uncle played Sonic and told me I was Tails.

deleted by creator

There’s a difference between conservatism and regressivism, and as you yourself keep saying, the Republicans you see on the internet (your source, apparently) are not just being conservative.

Which again, begs the question of why you think you’re qualified to claim that this is some “truth”.

And again, I’m completely sympathetic to the idea that uncritical hatred and demonising of “the other side” leads to uncritical and one-sided ideas of the “truth”.

What I think you’re missing is the nuance that someone can consider both sides and still consider that one side is indefensible. The disqualification of the modern Republican from being “good people” does not mean that someone has not carefully thought through their stand.

Now about how you react to bad people: you can give them a chance to be good - the benefit of the doubt that they may not actually be standing for everything that being a modern Republican involves. But like I said previously, it might be a good time for those people to re-evaluate whether they actually are Republicans (an archaic term that has no real meaning today beyond a party affiliation) or feel like maybe it’s time to recognise something has gone deeply wrong.

If this God exists outside time, it would make sense since we may be unable to perceive these perturbations in time - it will just always have been that way.

Then that leads to the even bigger question of how you know that not all Republicans - at least, its uniquely American construction - are bad?

(If you mean to say that in your country, republican is a beautiful-smelling flower, then the answer to that is that in common internet discourse, it has come to mean the American GOP, and people who may be taking the hyperbolic stance that all Republicans are bad are talking specifically about those Republicans. Just FYI.)

And don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge supporter of the idea that increased polarisation and demonisation of the other side is only going to push people towards extreme positions and alienate those who only support a small number out of the basket of things that are in that box: things that may be necessary for their continued survival or way of life.

Nonetheless, given what the Republican party has begun to stand for more and more, with its wilful ignorance and inexplicable support for Trump, it is becoming increasingly indefensible to believe that people who will vote for that particular team, regardless of the consequences, are not basically complicit in evil.

I personally don’t think all Republicans are bad. But even the good ones have had years to consider if maybe they were the baddies. And if they recognise that there are deplorables among them, then maybe they shouldn’t take criticism towards the loudest of them so personally either. And consider moving away from the Republican brand.

Wait, if you’re a Republican and you’re admitting that Republican politicians don’t have critical thinking ability, then why are you still voting for having them run a country and affecting the livelihoods of millions (billions) of people?

If the only Republican policies you’re supporting are benign ones (as a non-American, I don’t know which those are), are they worth all the ones that oppress and take away the rights of others?

And if you’re a Republican but not a fan or voter of the Republican party as it stands, then maybe you need to reconsider what your definition of a Republican is, because Republicans themselves today are defining themselves in ever-bolder terms.

I think the older generation got used to the stereotype that if people were posting with emojis, they would naturally be making more immature posts (being younger). There are a lot more people from the older generation on the Fediverse.

For an example of this generational gap: you mention that “On Reddit people use emojis a lot” - that genuinely is not the experience on Reddit I had: when I still used Reddit frequently, emojis were treated with the same level of disdain (which both explains and is explained by the condescension around the Emoji Movie).

So you’re signalling that you’re from a certain generation and looking to appeal to people who are similarly from that generation of people who like to use emojis to express themselves. That’s going to attract some people and also going to rub others the wrong way. And that’s fine! Keep using your emojis. You just might want to remember that a lot of the people who hated new Reddit and a lot of the people who left Reddit for Lemmy the first time are/were going to be old-timers (by internet standards), so you might find fewer like-minded people here.

As a last note, your saying you “miss emojis” makes me feel extra old (and I don’t think I’m old at all!): it suggests that the time of emojis has not only eclipsed the internet culture I’m familiar with but has died out also. That’s two eras. It’s fortunate that at this current point in time, it seems like digital cultural eras can pass in weeks.