I love it when I stumble across incredibly human moments like this in textbooks in the wild. It really brightens my day because it reminds me that a person (or more usually, people) wrote this hefty tome.

That seems like a reasonable requirement that helps to justify the necessity of the CBC

I really like the world exploration. The world is pretty big, and it’s common to come across an obstacle that you can’t get past. I like the feeling of spending a few minutes trying to assess whether there’s a way past, and then going off adventuring elsewhere, eventually finding something that makes you go “ooooh, that’s how I’m meant to get past that earlier place”. I like that it really rewards exploration. There’s a lot of hidden stuff, but it’s not overly opaque — there are usually lots of clues that help you to find secrets.

The open world also makes bosses easier. I’m not great at bosses, so quite often I will get bored of trying against a difficult boss and go elsewhere. There’s nearly always more places to explore, and possibly find things that will make things easier.

I also love how well tutorialized the game is. When you get a new ability, the level design in the section after that helps you to learn first hand how that ability works, so even though the literal tutorial bit is little more than "Press [button] to [use ability], you come away with a good understanding of what that new ability will allow you to do.

I’m also typically not keen on platformers, but this game scratches a different itch for me

We shouldn’t conflate the Jewish people and the Israeli state/Zionists. That benefits Israel

I agree that cultural hegemony plays a huge role in how studies consider concepts like democracy, and that this can lead to problems in the analysis — it sounds like we’re on the same page about that. What I’m struggling with is what you would consider to be a neutral, scientific study? Because even if we agree that this study sets out its baseline poorly enough that we should take it’s findings with plenty of salt, I am unclear on how one could set a baseline in a manner that’s objective.

Your point comparing Switzerland and Cuba is a good example here. You highlight that ideological values reveal themselves in which statistics are chosen to include, and which are ignored. My question is whether it’s possible to do objective research in these areas at all; if one were to take into account the pressure of cultural hegemony in defining democracy, and instead included commonly ignored statistics in one’s analyses as part of an effort to produce counter hegemonic research, isn’t that just as politically biased as the study in the OP?

Zooming out a bit, my wider question is not just about whether we can analyse things like democracy in an objective, scientific manner, but also whether we should. Science is often rhetorically leveraged to “objectivity launder” issues, which is especially problematic because that involves ignoring how Western science itself is borne of imperialist and classist systems, and often perpetuates elements of these (especially when people buy into the idea that “objective science” is a thing that exists, which I don’t).

How does one scientifically define a democracy?

That’s a great line, and captures a lot of the complex feelings I have around this

Thanks for your service o7

I had heard about the online discourse in this area, but I’m glad to hear that something has come of that movement.

Fucking hell, that must have been terrifying

It took me a while, but I ended up really enjoying Death Stranding. One of the things that made it click for me was that I watched a video essay on a different game that used the playwright Bertholt Brecht’s V-effect as an analytical frame.

My rough understanding of it is that Brecht wanted to break the fourth wall and prevent audiences from identifying too heavily with characters, enabling them to better engage with the themes of the play; for example, if audiences end up identifying with a character who is a relatable asshole, then they might be less inclined to critically understand this character and the systems that facilitate their assholery.

Death Stranding invokes this with its absurd characters and setting. I never stopped finding it jarring when you have such silly character names and plots. This meant that for my first few hours of playing, I felt like I didn’t “get it”, and it seems like this is a fairly common reaction. However, this sense of “I don’t get it” is interesting because of how it primes you to search for something to get — some larger point that Kojima is trying to make with the game. If nothing else, I appreciate games and other media that have something to say, even if I struggle to grasp that message.

If I had to distill things down, I think the most prominent theme I understood was “Play is an essential component of human wellness, and it has tremendous capacity to facilitate building human connection”. I enjoyed how this was explored narratively through Sam’s interactions with various characters, but also through ludic means via the player interacting with other player build structures (I really enjoyed getting so many thumbs up for all the roads I built). Death Stranding sometimes feels pretentious, but I remember thinking “what’s more pretentious: the game that’s trying (and possibly failing, depending on perspective) hard to say something larger, or the player who regards the game with disdain”. Ultimately, I feel that the potential pretentiousness is neutralised by how earnest it is. Yes, it’s a very silly game, but that’s sort of the point.

Regarding Rings of Power, I absolutely hated the show, which sounds like a stronger opinion than what you hold. However, I completely agree that the discourse around the show is a trash fire of bad faith criticism that makes it impossible to express legitimate dislike of the show that’s based in honesty.

My current computer is the one that I helped my late best friend build, and I’m so glad that we ended up going for an AMD GPU. I wasn’t using Linux back then (and neither was he), so it was just a lucky fluke. My switch to running Linux as my main operating system would’ve been far more stressful with a Nvidia GPU, it seems.

I bought a pint for an acquaintance at my philosophy discussion group because he was moving away and this was his last session. I’m pretty poor at the moment, so even a small purchase like this was a lot. It was definitely worth it though, because it convinced him to stay for a while longer than he would have (the group session is held upstairs in a pub, but afterwards there’s usually informal discussions that continue downstairs in the main pub).

It felt very much like I was performing human socialisation in a deliberate, but nice way. I already told the dude that I would miss his presence at the group, but buying a farewell drink for him was a way of reiterating that sentiment.

This is hilarious. I’m deeply sad that I don’t think my irl friends would appreciate this joke, because I want to share it with everyone.

(I am personally irked by vibe coding because some assholes in my life have been real smug about how much better of a programmer they are than me due to vibe coding. )

One of the key motifs of conservative ideology is zero-sum thinking: they seem to think that if someone else is gaining something, it must mean that someone else (possibly them) are losing.

I feel like “canonically” is a weird word for the person in the OP to use here. My view is that there was a pretty strong trans reading of Gwen, but I think that when people say “[character] is [trait]”, it negates discussions due to things becoming a debate about facts rather than a discussion of themes and coding.

I recently used Jekyll (https://jekyllrb.com/) as a static site generator. I found it easy to use. I personally used Gitlab pages, because I didn’t feel confident hosting on my home internet (didn’t want to inadvertently cause issues for my housemates when I’m still learning this stuff).

The nice thing about static sites is that it’s pretty easy to find free or extremely cheap hosting for them.

Anti-vaxxers often do a lot of reading, ime. The stuff they read is often bullshit written by scammers or other people who drank the Kool-aid, but I think the “research” they do is a big part of the anti-vaxx culture. My view is that many who are drawn into conspiracy theories end up there due to a diminished sense of agency, and that the “research” is key to them feeling more in control — it gives them a false sense of understanding in which they can take all their bad feelings about how the world is, and construct a worldview in which they feel more oriented.

It reminds me a lot of the line “antisemitism is the socialism of fools”, though I feel like this is more like “anti-vax is the antiauthoritarianism of fools”. It’s frustrating because in some ways, they’re so close to understanding the ways in which the world is super fucked up, but they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and hide in a fortress of ignorance instead.

That sounds like it must’ve been rough. I’m sorry for your loss.

Shall I list off the crimes and systemic injustices perpetrated by atheists, or secular systems? Because the capacity to do great evil is not a trait exclusive to the religious.

I don’t deny that religious systems often facilitate the grave injustices that you list, but to lay equal blame across all religions and religious people is foolish because it fails to get at the true problem. People abusing their power would be a problem even if there were no religious people in the world at all.