GoodbyeBlueMonday @ GoodbyeBlueMonday @startrek.website

Posts

0

Comments

130

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24645

...as if Ukrainians don't have the capacity to think for themselves. Putin/Russian wouldn't give actual security guarantees on their end. It would also have required changing the constitution. Also after seeing the horrors of the war, they weren't ready to just roll over.

They would have had the money and time for the CGI if they didn't spend so much in footage for all of Morn's damn monologues.

Oh agreed: I just thought the meta-nature of the players themselves being unsure of the veracity of character information might make things weird for folks uncomfortable with gossip. In any case I think it sounds like a fun idea!

You're getting dragged, but I think I get your point: that it might seed suspicion and distrust among not only the characters but the players?

I think it should be Rule 0 that the DM and players all respect each other's boundaries, so consent is always part of the equation IMHO. Likewise, if everyone at the table insists on playing a certain way that I'm uncomfortable with, then it's time for me to find a new table.

You just don’t realize how good we have it here, even if it means we have to work hard sometimes and get up early and spend five days a work working for someone else. That’s an opportunity millions of other humans can only dream of having.

Do you ever reflect on the fact that "we" have it good "here" because other people are suffering?

We are incredibly fortunate, but it comes at a serious cost. The cheap electronics and clothing and tchotchkes we drown ourselves in is made on the backs of folks less fortunate (not to mention the biosphere as a whole). We didn't sign up to be on the side of exploitation, and we don't want to live in ignorance of what supports our way of life.

I've got some student loans....

Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you're taking a severely strict interpretation of it.

So that's my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I'm a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between "The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun" and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can't we enact other common sense laws?

If I can barge into this comment chain, the confusion seems to stem from your initial comment.

It’s not really “common sense” though. The Constitution clearly says you have a right to own a gun.

The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun.

It’s a Right, not a “right”*.

Isn't the application of an FFL the state requiring a permit to own a (certain kind of) gun? Likewise, the state telling folks they can or can't own guns just because of a few measly felonies...isn't that against a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment? Doesn't that deny them a "Right"?

There was a recent speech/plan/diatribe about this kind of thing by Cory Doctorow a couple months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rimtaSgGz_4

What I most appreciated about it is that in addition to describing the problems we're facing, he also proposed some actual fixes that are possible - though not without organization and concerted effort from those of us who care about this kind of thing!

In addition to what others have said (all those examples are equally misleading IMHO), given that its the 25th Anniversary of Half-Life, a lot of us are primed to hope for news of a new game from Valve.

I don't know what days I don't need that.

I struggle to find what to say, because I'm just some random schmuck on the internet. Plenty of people post vile comments, so I'm going to post a saccharine one, in honor of your friend.

Others have said it already, but I'll say it again because why not: your voice online has been a pleasure.

Grief is terrible, and I'm sorry you lost a loved one. I'm lucky enough to have a friend like the one you describe. We're a big part of each others' support system, and a lot of what we talk about winds up being Trek. I say that only to let you know that your grief will help me remember why I should cherish my friend, while we're both around. Maybe that doesn't do you any good, hopefully it doesn't come across as selfish/insensitive on my part (if so, you have my apology in advance), but maybe it's some consolation that you and your buddy are inspiring others who have never even met you. We all have an effect on people's lives, whether we know when it happens or not. Just being some kind of role model, even in a small way, will influence people for the better. That's my hope, anyway. So you and your buddy have clearly been doing this for a lot of us, here. I'm sure elsewhere. You don't owe any of us anything, but I know seeing your positivity makes me smile.

Gotta say though, I wouldn't mind the unceremonious death of Jadzia if it wasn't wrapped up in the sexist contract disputes, because the character is the perfect one to kill off, because she was (in a sense) only mostly dead! Imagine if we had gotten the chance to see Ezri talk to Jadzia, like we saw Jadzia talk to former hosts.

The two of them could work through the complications of living on the same station as Jadzia's husband, how her death wasn't some honorable warrior's death like Jadzia (and Curzon) would have dreamed about, and how Ezria wasn't ready for the responsibility of being a host. There's a lot of really interesting stuff writers could play with there, and I think Adira and Gray in Discovery have showed there's some nice storytelling potential there (the same kind of additions to canon could have happened with Ezri and Jadzia, in terms of a traumatic host transfer causing unexpected bonds between the hosts' memories).

I had read your initial comment as insinuating the previous commenter was supporting hamas, and when someone directly challenged you on it, you didn't reject that accusation.

So if you just wanted to point out the irony, consider my comment as much a non sequitor as your comment on its irony, which is - I suppose - at least irony-adjacent in itself.

Do you get mad at geologists for explaining why volcanoes erupt and kill people?

There's a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.

As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they're likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?

So this isn't me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don't need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don't feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.

The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it's a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn't make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.

What kind of legislation, though? Loot boxes seem like an easy one to write: gambling is illegal already in a lot of places. When it's just exploitative greed, I'm not sure how it's technically so different from charging exorbitant rates for swag at a baseball game or something. Or charging a few thousand bucks for a purse at some high-end fashion retailer.

To be clear: I loathe the FOMO trends in game development, overpriced skins, micro/macro-transactions, and all the "credit/XP boosters" type bullshit. Turning money into ingame currencies to obfuscate actual prices, the general design of games frontloading fun and then squeezing dollars out of you to feel that same high again....I'm just skeptical that there's anything to do about it from a legal perspective that doesn't apply to most of the rest of the capitalist enterprises out there. Please though, I want to be wrong about this, so any examples of how to curb some of these excesses would be great.

Precisely. I voted today and it took a few minutes of my time. There was still plenty of time in the morning to keep working on the things I think will make more of an impact re: improving things somewhat. Mutual aid and anything else in the bucket of "resisting tyrannical government" is much easier when it's only +1 more evil rather than +10.

Didn't you just lay out why it is a social problem, though? Men are disproportionately abusing folks because they're disproportionately in power.

Clearly testosterone plays a major role in causing aggressive behavior, and men tend to have more testosterone, but that also isn't a clear-cut division between groups, and folks with lower testosterone can certainly still be aggressive monsters. Oversimplifying the problem isn't going to fix things.

I'm all for it! Balancing by buffing rather than nerfing seems to be best, in most cases.