AceTKen

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

No, I do not personally believe this. I believe that this phrase is one of the shortest-form strawman “arguments” that exist and is usually spoken by itself with zero justification or understanding of the issue referenced.

And beside that, it should be obvious that it is very often not true. Most of the time with issues “the point” is cost-saving, stubbornness, cause & effect disagreements, or difference of opinion on how to carry things out. If there is cruelty involved, it is a side-effect, not the point. Even then, the side being accused may feel the cruelty lay on the opposing side because cruelty is a moral argument, and you can not apply morals universally.

The phrase is like saying “the point of drinking water is to touch your genitals while peeing.” It actively avoids the real point in order to make the entire act seem absurd and is a bad faith argument from the jump.

A good way to find out if “cruelty is the point” is to do a thought experiment. “If they could do / remove the crux of the issue and the perceived oppressed group would still be happy some other way, would this still be an issue?”

For example (and I am not passing a value judgment here, I’m simply doing the thought experiment with a real-world example), if a state passed an anti-transitioning law, but found a single pain-free pill to remove all dysphoria from the affected group, would they allow that pill? If yes, then the cruelty didn’t factor into the decision - the issue and how to deal with it did.

To be absurdist, if you feel they wouldn’t allow the “pill fix”, and cruelty is still the point, then why have they not made the suffering worse? They could say “you can have whatever treatment you want, but only if you allow us to torture you for 6 hours per day!”

If a person eats meat, but is grossed out by factory farming and avoids it, is the point the cruelty or the ease, nutrients, and flavour of a standard omnivorous diet? Rationally, do you really feel that their first thought before biting into a burger is “Fuck this cow, I hope it died screaming.”

No. That would be insane.

Thinking and speaking in this fashion only removes the ability to deal with difficult situations in a meaningful or rational way and simply shows others that you can’t even pretend to fathom other people. It shows that the speaker is not empathetic in the slightest, but sure would like to be perceived as such by their in-group.

AceTKen, 1 month ago

As I’ve said since the beginning, I’d like to see more diversification of opinion in the userbase. There are a LOT of people here that are the kind of activist you’d see get banned on Reddit for being hyper-aggressive and it really turns neutral- or otherwise-thinking users off. They don’t discuss, they immediately attack and flame and it’s not good for building communities around except hyper-focused ones based on those issues specifically.

I want people who know the reason they think something and don’t just have an emotional response and stick with it, then strawman everyone else in the vicinity who deviates.

As we say in the main Rules for our Community ( !actual_discussion ), “Not everything is a genocide, and not everyone even slightly to the right of you is a Nazi.”

I also want MUCH better Community controls such as the ability to decorate, and disable downvotes.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Played the OG version with all the DLC and not the Spacer’s Choice version, so take my comments with that in mind:

PROS:

• The music was completely appropriate and fit the world. It was nothing I’d listen to independently though.
• It ran very well the entire time I played it. Very little in the way of hitching, and very quick load times.
• Achievements!
• From beginning to end I was having a darn good time. It’s a “smooth” game experience that I stayed up way too late a few nights in a row to get through because I couldn’t wait to see what came next.
• Many ways to solve issues; you didn’t feel forced to end nearly anything in a certain way. The only exception was one main DLC quest I couldn’t finish the way I wanted due to the level cap being too low and not having enough points.
• Zero bugs experienced.
• Plenty to explore and loads of side stories to discover. Some stories weren’t wonderfully told and were hard to track, but many more than that were awesome.

NEUTRAL:

• It felt like it ended too soon. A game like this with two expansions should have offered more. That’s both a good thing and a bad thing in that it didn’t overstay its welcome either.

CONS:

• Some of the achievements are deeply annoying to the point that I gave up on completing the set. You’d have to waste dozens of hours to grind all of them and play in some pretty odd ways that wouldn’t match normal gameplay.
• There are no romance options for the player, and only thing even remotely like it in game is a gay asexual romance quest for a side character. You get some G-rated come-ons thrown your way, but nothing can come of it. It’s extremely puzzling in it’s puritanicality in both how the colony operates, and how everything is treated. Not that this has to be a porn game or anything, mind you, but some options to do SOMETHING romance-related (or characters that operate like they have genitals) like Mass Effect or Fallout would be nice. Heck, there aren’t even any kids in the world to show that someone had bred ever.
• Some of the environments and buildings are not terribly visibly distinct and it hurt pathfinding. It would tell me to go somewhere specific and I wasn’t sure what it was referring to, and this was after playing for hours. This has something to do with the “corporate jargon” style language they use as well. It fits stylistically, but can be confusing.
• The sidekicks stories felt exceptionally rushed and some of the outcomes were a little nonsensical.
• I beat the game and both DLCs close to 100% in under 37 hours.
• The level cap even with the DLCs is set to 36 which I hit about halfway through the game, and I felt like it needed far more. It really made that feeling of progression you love in these games stop dead. There was nothing to find for new item upgrades or interesting loot past that point. This was my largest gripe with the game by far as it disincentivized exploration because there was nothing to gain by doing so at that stage. UPDATE: The new version of the game supposedly upgrades the level cap to something a little less horrible. I wish this were available during my playthrough as the game isn’t worth going through a second time. If you’re interested, I HIGHLY recommend waiting for the newer edition.

DID YOU FINISH THE GAME?: Yup! And the DLC. Though if you’re playing now, just get the new edition since it fixes the XP progression block that I mention above.

CONCLUSION: While it won’t stick with me for years, it was great while it lasted and I would 100% play more in the series. If you enjoy story and exploration, play this. The only things stopping it from being Fallout-level good was the awful level cap and the lack of content.

AceTKen, 1 month ago

You are correct. I was dumb. I’ve fixed it now! Thanks for letting me know.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

I’ve done some some protesting in high school, but it was mostly dumb school decisions and most of the seniors joined in. It’s easy to protest when that basically means a ditch day. Hell, people that didn’t care at all joined in just to bail on class, so I don’t really think it counts.

Other than that, I’ve just done some for local politics which are often more effective than business or federal protests because the local people need to live near you and pissing off your neighbours is a lot more stupid than pissing off a nebulous “them” located elsewhere.

That being said, I feel most modern protesting is done poorly and doesn’t do much currently beyond being a 30-second blip on the 24 / 7 media machine.

I’ve spoken about it before, but the currently popular street- or bridge-blocking protests I feel are among some of the most misguided - mostly because they don’t target. Please note that I’m not talking about things like French protests where they happen to organize and there’s so many people present that they have to block off streets in front of government buildings. Not at all. Those people know how to fucking protest.

For example, if you’re protesting a war (like several recent ones), why wouldn’t you, say, protest the factories where the weapons are made or buildings where executives meet? I don’t mean they should just hold up some signs outside, but blockade those businesses in. Stop the parkades from functioning.

Maybe find out who their major shareholders are and publicly shame them. Dig up dirt on them. Harangue them online. Hacktivism. Do anything you can to stop them. Hell, find the neighbourhoods that those shareholders live in and blockade those. If it’s a war protest, protest at the schools that their children go to letting them know their rich parents are murdering people overseas.

You have to stay pissed off, and not let them wear you out because protesting like this is fucking hard and isn’t just a fun afternoon outside with friends like some of these other ones.

And, again, the targets are wrong because there is no target.

A street- or bridge-blocking protest is like protesting the food in a prison cafeteria by beating the shit out of your cellmate, and then calling them complicit because they ate food yesterday. What the hell are they supposed to do about it? And do you think a recently beaten cellmate will be more or less receptive to your cause after?

Bridge / street blocks are not creative, don’t get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and don’t change minds of those who hear about it on the news. Same with the stupid “pour soup / oil on a piece of art” shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.

… which just means you have to get creative. Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.

Protest threads on Lemmy often reek of this attitude I see frequently of “It’s a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I’ll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!” Great. You support them. In some cases, I do too.

But how about we actually do something?

AceTKen, 1 month ago

I didn’t mention it in my post, but you mentioned it. I’m not quite settled on the violence aspect. For the most part, no, violence isn’t needed.

But… what else do you do when the government won’t stop putting your future in danger? I truly don’t know how else to affect environmental policy because right now they’re backsliding on their goals and promises. I dunno. I’m definitely okay with any group who mass-sabotages big polluters.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

What is the ideal work / life balance?

I agree with you that one size doesn’t fit all, but I feel there has to be some kind of baseline standard. When I was looking around, I was unable to find when the current standard in North America changed from 9-5 to 8-5, but that shit needs to stop. A large amount of work is now decentralized due to computer and data storage, so there’s no reason hours have to be (with in-person requirement exceptions like restaurants and stores). Given the productivity increases of the last 50 years, we could work one day a week and still be more productive than equivalent work week 50 years past.

Greedy CEOs

I strongly believe that income ratios would be one of the most impactful things we could do. No person working full-time at a company deserves more than, say, 5 times more than any other full-time employee and should factor in “perks” like dividends and such. This kind of thing should be legally mandated.

UBI

I adore the idea of UBI, but we have to make sure the implementation is solid. I love some of the ideas I’ve seen from economists for them (and no, economists are not interested in growing bottom lines, they’re interested in how economic systems function). I also feel the economy has to be made more cyclical which would assist in this.

Unions

I like the resurgence as well, but I’m wary of power and sway over things not related to the unions. The leaders of these unions need to be kept honest just like corporate leaders should be because the ability to abuse the power is also possible (see many union leaders in the 1970s). Open books to members of the union should be the minimum required.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

I have always felt that the arguments are always rather skewed on this every time they’re trucked out.

The North-American Right-wing will say “Keep politics out of my (games / movies / music / hardcore porn)…”

The unspoken end part is “that I don’t like.”

The Left will often say “Everything is political…”

While the unspoken part is “but only if looked at through an astoundingly specific and personal lens. Oh, and also a large majority of the media is on my side and therefore producing content for me.”

And both arguments are goofy and hand-wave each other away with the same amount of shitty dismissiveness.

Yes, politics could theoretically be in everything… to you. You can interpret anything any way you like. But also no, your interpretation does not make neutral media “political” to the large majority of people all of a sudden. Your interpretation is not law, it is opinion and the intent of the creator trumps your interpretation.

Yes, politically-charged media can be done VERY well. But also no, it doesn’t need to be ONLY directly speaking about / parables of current events. This is lazy, hacky writing.

Yes, sometimes things need to be said in a piece if that’s what the art is about. But also no, do we need ten thousand pieces on the exact same thing, all saying the same message, and bringing nothing new to the table.

You can set up interesting “What If” scenarios where one side isn’t generically stupid, evil warmongers and the other side isn’t all noble, selfless underdog do-gooders bravely fighting The Man.

Bad guys can do good. Good guys can do bad. The world is a lot greyer than people want to have to face up to, and I wish our media was smarter and more challenging.

I fear that people don’t want that, however. They want their media to cater to them as much as their online social media. That fucking terrifies me.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

But there definitely are though. Why wouldn’t you, say, protest the factories where these things are made? Not just hold up some signs outside, but blockade those businesses in.

Maybe find out who their major shareholders are and publicly shame them. Dig up dirt on them. Do anything you can to stop them.

Maybe find the neighbourhoods that those shareholders live in and blockade those.

Protest at the schools that their children go to letting them know their parents are murdering people overseas.

It took me like 3 minutes to think of those and those are far more effective than what is going on in this news story. Are protesters in America really that short-sighted but they can’t think of anything better than annoying other normal people and making enemies?

This is like protesting the food in a prison cafeteria by beating the shit out of your cellmate, and then calling him complicit because he ate food yesterday.

They’re not targeting the right people, they’re simply turning normal people off of their message.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

I had to go look them up, but it seems that some have protested manufacturing plants, though not in a terribly effective way. The protests seem to be short-term, and none of the other things I mentioned have been done anywhere I was able to find.

I’ve seen plenty of stories involving protests uselessly blocking main thoroughfares however.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

… which just means you have to get creative.

Freeway blocking is not creative, doesn’t get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and doesn’t change minds of readers. Same with the stupid “throw soup / oil at a piece of art” shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.

Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.

This thread (not you explicitly) reeks of this attitude I see frequently on Lemmy of “It’s a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I’ll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!”

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

In this one instance they might do that. In the area where I live where it was done, there was no space for the emergency vehicles to go in the other direction. Just because there are ways they could do it in this one case doesn’t make it universal.

Also, are you able to provide the polling you referenced showing that highway blockades change minds? I was unable to find anything other than web and call-in polls, both of which overwhelmingly showed the exact opposite (but those are hardly scientific so I wouldn’t trust them).

Also, I’m not the one downvoting you. I do not do that.

AceTKen, 1 month ago

But come now, certainly you must recognize that that’s not even close to causation. Just because it’s done often doesn’t even come close to meaning that there’s any proof that it functions as you state.

If I carry a “rock of tiger repellent” and tell you that I’ve never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must work, it’s the same logic.

Countries that do not (or rarely) have highway blockades have more civil rights or had them earlier than the US did. They also have stronger protections and aren’t helping bomb Gaza. Using the logic stated by you, that may actually mean that highway protests make things worse.

Again, just because it agrees with you politically, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. There’s no study or data indicating that it functions, and scads of loose polls and information saying it doesn’t (which are only slightly better than no evidence at all). I’d encourage an actual study, but judging by every thread I’ve ever seen on the issue, the only people claiming to be even minutely swayed by these demonstrations were people already on the side of the protesters.

AceTKen, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

Street protests generally carried out in front of royal palaces or civic structures where those in power worked had an impact, yes. NOT protests at a random road in town.

I am factually correct here.

I have never stated that protests aren’t effective when carried out well. I’ve stated that these road blocking protests aren’t effective because they do not target.

AceTKen, 1 month ago

March of the pigs - nine inch nails?

AceTKen, 2 months ago

The writing on this tablet being from a time when his civilization was collapsing. The only change to make his words 100% correct would be “as we know it.”

AceTKen, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria

If the image is true at all, the year mentioned is about 200 years prior to Assyria even being formed. This closely coincides with one of the pre-Assyrian collapse (or massive shift) periods where the society changed a great deal.

Hence “as we know it.”

AceTKen, 2 months ago

Nope. I’m in Canada and it happens here too.

AceTKen, 2 months ago

Thanks for the response! I would very much appreciate any way to further grow the Community, so I’d love to get added to the spotlight.

AceTKen, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

it seemed more like a place for the mods to have a soap box

I mean… that’s what starting a thread is as a CMV, article, or Steelman (among others). As a mod, it’s kind of our job to create threads when the Community isn’t large enough yet. Do you feel someone would start a community called Actual Discussion and not have anything they’d like to discuss?

some of the “topic starters” were incredibly leading

They were common talking points I saw in other threads ripped almost directly from top replies, not my opinion. And you were never required to speak on the starters, they were simply things to get people thinking and responding.

All in all, I’d say you’re being rather uncharitable in your descriptions.

AceTKen, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

The points weren’t chosen for quality, they were chosen because they are commonly parroted. This was in order to encourage people to discuss things that are commonly spoken, but may not be ideologically sound. In other words, they were chosen specifically to be debateworthy. If a poster chose, as long as they were on topic, they could also completely ignore them or create a new thread. Often in order to discuss something, you must give an opinion first and not merely sit and critique what other people say.

The topics where I wrote out a bunch of stuff that was ripe for picking apart were the topics that were discussed the most heavily. If you don’t feel like that’s a discussion, then I’m not sure what you would feel like one was.

AceTKen, 1 month ago

!casualconversation

Nice! Link updated in the sidebar. How has it affected the Community so far?