Supposedly, I am a human, who does very human things.
I think it’s better to phrase these opinions as questions, not accusations. Like: “3rd party revolutionary types: what do you think of these? Do you like them?”.
I’m not sure it would help, because they fundamentally still have a very harmful idea that encourages voter apathy and hurts people.
It will be, but not only from them winning. This aittitude is a big part of the problem.
You won’t win via a violent revolution, and you wont win via a third party (anyone who understands the basic forces involved when a system has winner takes all or first past the post), so instead you win by slowly taking over the democrat party with increasingly progressive candidates.
Its literally the only way a slow system like the US can be changed, and this “why didn’t they fix it in one term!!!” attitude seeks to attribute blame rather than problem solve.
I think the smart take is to understand the DNC is antagonistic towards our goals but simultaneously is the entity we need to slowly change (through primaries, state and local politics) and continue to support while that happens to avoid the massive harm of having republicans win.
Oh nowadays you can get 26tb drives pretty affordably, so a 4 bay NAS could be getting you 50TiB now.
Of course most people don’t need all that though… including me honestly but hey, that data isn’t going to collect itself.
pretty sure that’s meant in a light hearted fashion
God forbid someone have an autocorrect typo
They will, at actual problems, while you get angry simping for billionaires who consider you scum.
Is this logic that someone specifically investing vs having a retirement fund or similar is the same thing?
even for the misguided idiots
I don’t think a single one of them didn’t vote to hurt some marginalized group.
I think they’re all actually single issue voters, and their issue was “hurting the right people” to maintain what they feel their status in the hierarchy should be.
The unfortunate thing is marginalized people suffer the most, so most of them are more than happy with the sacrifice.
Coal causes so much fucking harm to this world.
It, alongside OIL and lead have to be some of the all time greats in terms of materials causing harm.
They choose between half the whole population and the whole population (very roughly as it aligns alongside exponents of 2)
Legally speaking, I think the only legally correct (very much not morally) correct thing to do is absolutely nothing whatsoever.
You might be required to call the authorities, but given that either option in theory may eventually lead to the loss of life I think you’d be most safe legally, if you didn’t touch a damn thing.
Imagine not having a double digit bay NAS with triple digit number of Tebibytes.
Alternatively, your setup is kinda slow and you’re kinda lazy (not used pejoratively).
In what way? You don’t own anything on the fediverse. The people who run the various instances do.
Maybe they even have a TOS that says you own it, but then what? its still up to them to continue to host it, and they have no contract with you.
Unless you are self hosting your own instance, and only count what is on that, you own no more than with larger social media sites.
To be clear, I think that federations certainly are better than monolithic sources for a variety of reasons for real people, but they aren’t a solution for ownership.
Both of the two major parties started out as third parties.
It is not 1842, and these parties were almost always within 2 party systems. Their history is full of factions splitting and just going back to 2 parties again. This is all way back when there was way less inertia and thats still how it worked.
The Democratic party’s brand is mud. People are sick of both parties. That’s the exact scenario that leads to successful third parties.
Ah yes, this third party will rise from the ashes of all the political dissidents and marginalized people killed in this totally brief and not worth worrying about period where the GOP has locked in control over government for decades as the democratic party split.
Do people literally just not think through anything? The other party doesn’t just wait because you have an identity crisis. You have to fix the engine while you’re driving because thats the real world and thats how it is.
You can’t just imagine a fairytale and pretend its got a chance in hell of happening.
Never hold Democrats accountable for anything
You’re already so off base you completely missed the point of my comment.
Its not “Never hold Democrats accountable for anything”. Its that you shouldn’t shoot off your own leg to own the DNC. Thats the mentality of a lot of online leftists. They are willing to actually shotgun the chances of the changes they want to see being successful in order to punish an organization that largely and clearly, even in their own opinions, runs contrary to their goals and is incentivised differently than their feelings of anger and rage would have them act.
“Holding democrats accountable” by making them lose, is cutting your own legs off to splash some blood on their Louis Vuitton; Its stupid childish shit that hurts real people. They care way more about not doing what you want than they do about losing.
You can accept that reality and accept that the best and by far most pragmatic way to react is to primary people, vote in state and local politics and continue to campaign for a party you know is somewhat antagonistic to your goals, or you can chop your legs off and basically do free marketing for the people who actively want to hurt you as opposed to passively wanting to take from you, keep taxes on the rich low, etc etc.
There are no magic third options (that actually work or are possible).
as they will always be able to cite the 60 vote rule in the Senate.
They won’t if people stopped the foolish infighting and instead just tried to take over the party from within while supporting them when it comes the time to fall in line. Thats the reality of that situation. The reality is that the filibusterer exists, and will continue to, and that it will continue to be an excuse they use.
Completely ignore the things they can don’t do that they could do with the power they do have.
No it does not. Firstly, they actually do a ton when in power, and secondly the things they don’t do but should, we don’t ignore. We just weigh the options without thinking like angsty teenagers ready to cause self harm just to get our parents to notice us.
Just keep voting Democrat forever. Voting for the good team is more important than actually making policy changes
What this ignores is that voting for the good team is exactly how you make positive changes. You can’t make positive changes by turning your country into a hellscape. You can’t change them with a third party. So how are you going to change them? You pick the party of 2 that is closest to you, and you change them from within.
So when it is not filler, should you be disallowed from skipping it? Who is to say what the benefit is? Does the design intent matter?
Why should you? Why should the player be disallowed from doing anything? They bought the game. They should be allowed to do whatever to the point of unreasonable hardship for the developer. Like if a dev has to go out of their way, fair enough, but if its like, they’re just not exposing the ability to change a setting, thats ridiculous.
Did you ever read the book House of Leaves? It’s great. Unreliable narrators, unconventional layout and use of form. Several friends of mine bounced right off of it. “Can’t read this”, they said. I wouldn’t say they were gatekept. I wouldn’t say the author is ableist because they didn’t also provide a linear narrative, without all the footnotes. I accept that not everyone is going to finish that book. Even if they paid money for it.
These aren’t comparable situations. That one person almost certainly would have had to actually make significant effort, probably exceeding the effort of making the book to make it accessible. Video games aren’t that. More than that, the changes we are talking about are minor and relatively (compared to the scale of a game) easy to add. to add to that, people can still be into the majority of a game and not like one particular element, and there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to remove the bug bear. It is for entertainment after all.
That’s what a lot of these discussions feel like. Someone made something interesting and challenging, and people want it changed. If you take all the footnotes out of house of leaves, you get a very different, much reduced, result.
The question, as before, is, if the people who want that original experience can still just choose that, why are they up in arms at the idea of allowing people to experience things differently that don’t affect them?
Outside of completely made up arguments that this is not possible, no one has had an answer for this, just anger, as if they are mad at the idea of people not having to go through the “struggle” they feel they went to. Not having to have the “skills they built up”.
I’ve had countless people say the most toxic things I’ve seen on lemmy in this very thread over that idea, and I think thats the core of it. That behind all the bullshit excuses people have come up with, they feel like their achievements would somehow be worth less if other people could play the game differently to how they played. Like their other way of playing isn’t “official” enough and shouldn’t be supported at all.
I’ve had someone really iron in that this is the true intent when they revealed that they would prefer someone cheat in the game rather than the developer simply exposing those same things as options.
Well, earlier I said something about tuning difficulty down to the point of triviality, and you said that was a straw man.
It was. My point initially wasn’t about that, but when asked specifically, I think yea, why not, who cares. Why are other people caring so much about how others enjoy their media product.
But look, I’m not against options in games (assuming everyone playing gives informed consent. Unilaterally cheating is not okay).
I mean this conversation, I think, has pretty clearly morphed into a bunch of people vehemently angry about the prospect of souls like games having any difficulty changes, harder or less hard.
I don’t think anyone has been thinking about multiplayer.
I just think the framing of it as accessibility in the same way that subtitles or changing controller inputs is dicey. “I think this would be more fun” is a fine, subjective, argument. “This game is ableist” is much shakier.
I’m not sure I’ve used that as the core of my argument or my argument at all actually. Not sure though as, like you’ve probably seen, there are a shit ton of comments on this tree.
I think some forms of media will inherently be somewhat inaccessible, but there is no reason to go out of your way to support things being less accessible, even if accessible means to people who simply don’t like a thing one way vs the other.
Well, with the footnote that I do believe some people would ruin their own fun by turning the difficulty too high or low, but that’s not my business
See thats the thing. Everyone else in this thread has been violently angry at the idea that other people could have fun differently to them.
Ill give you one example. I liked Cyberpunk. It was a decent game, and I’ve played through it a few times.
The first time I played it, I played without any mods, very hard, just because (I’m honestly only including this to stop bs arguments, though you haven’t seemed supremely disengenous like many others on this thread so far, and feel I shouldnt need to, to make my point), and then every time after that I played with mods, and I wish I just played with the mods from the start.
What did I change? I completely removed the breach protocol minigame (I generally feel all minigames suck, add no fun, and are just literally wasting my time, easy or difficulty), I used teleportation to avoid needing to do lengthy backtracking or worrying too much about missing items, I added a multiplier to xp to reduce grind and I used mods to remove useless mods (in game term) from guns and skip the randomized store inventories in the game. These were all downsides to the game that some people swear up and down add to the game. They absolutely do not to me.
With much experience now, I can confidently say that had I been presented with the options to simply tune things in that way, it would have massively improved my experience with the game.
Cyberpunk luckily, is relatively open for a game in that mods like this are plentiful and easy to come by, and the code fairly accessible. Many games are not. In many games, you just have to deal with the shitty minigame, or random loot or whatever.
Its not that I would necessarily hate those games or that they “aren’t made for me” as many assholes in this thread have tried to imply must be the logic behind every critique, its that those elements were just generally subtractive to the experience, and I have yet to see anyone explain why I should be forced to play with them.
To many people, dying over and over isn’t fun, and in Cyberpunk if that was a problem for me, I probably wouldn’t find it all that fun either. Given this game has so many ways to solve every problem, and the combat I found pretty easy, I played with very hard, but if I was getting annoyed by having to repeat the same thing for hours on end, I would have no problem changing difficulties for this.
Cyberpunk is no worse for wear for having these options available to people. People who don’t know modding exists and who like the game as it is, aren’t affected by this.
I think its a great example of how this mentality of “made to be played this way” is all elitist gatekeeping in gaming. People don’t know fuck all about development. Their opinions aren’t coming from some deep love of a genre. They’re coming from feeling like a part of their identity will die if the game they feel they are “good at” is more accessible, and thats it really. This isn’t a job or for money, so that idea is just absurd.
Preferential voting is absolutely not the way.
What you really want is proportional representation. This way you can just vote for exactly the party you want, and get exactly the representation amount proportional to the amount of people who voted for said party.
Some folding of the votes for parties too small to hold office could be reasonable, but I think a huge problem is any system that basically makes it impossible for anything other than 2 major parties to exist at a real player level.
I know I cut partially into another sentence but to me its what my big takeaway is. There is an attitude that thinking cynically is bad, even when its accurate, and I don’t see the appeal. It seems to have the mild positive of letting people believe in their fellow man more, but then a bevy of negatives from allowing people to be manipulated more easily.
What level is that though? I’m struggling to think of a point where it doesn’t pay to accurately have a feeling of what the potential of the other person is.