PlzGivHugs @ PlzGivHugs @sh.itjust.works

Posts

39

Comments

517

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm not suprised. On one hand, there wasn't exactly a lot of marketing around it. I didn't even know it was announced until last week, and I follow gaming news and some VR news. On top of this, its an expensive, casual device - the sort of thing a kid will ask for after seeing someone else using it, not something people are lining up day-one to buy. At least something like the Valve Index, for all its disadvantages, very clearly targets enthusiasts who will go out of their way to seek out newer or better products. If Valve decided to release a Valve Index 2 (or for a more direct comparison, a Valve Index Pro) I'd be willing to bet their day-one numbers would look better, even if their overall market is much smaller.

Its a somewhat more story and gameplay focused than Cookie Clicker, but still pretty chill. I won't say too much more, considering that it'd just spoil the fun of discovery.

On the topic of idle games, Cookie Clicker and A Dark Room still hold up well.

We don't need to know everything, we just need to know enough to make a decision off of. We see the same medication work 10000 times, we have evidence that we should use it. We see that a metal expand the same way when we test it 100 times. We can use that metal when we need something that expands consistently with tempreture. We don't need to know everything because our lives doesn't involve everything, and if we do discover something new, we either test it ourselves, or submit it to other groups to test.

No, but given enough people in the field and enough time, you can test most of what matters. You don't need to test (and re-test) absolutely everything. Just enough to draw consistent conclusions for the decisions people make.

I mean, if they have that much knowledge of WW2, then they should understand the potential of Hunka being involved with the Nazis, and/or with the war crimes on the Eastern Front. My point is that you don't even need to get to that level of depth or firmiliarity to see potential issues that could arise. Clearly they didn't consider even the basic red flags that could come with an understanding of the depth, "Soviets vs Nazis on the Eastern Front." No one involved in preparing the speech and inviting Hunka even thought to check which division he served in, nonetheless ensure he wasn't a war criminal.

Its stuff like that, that are why I specified, "In Ukraine." I know theres more actual compelxity on the Eastern Front, but I don't really expect people to know that much. I'm only really expecting people to know "Nazis vs Soviets on the Eastern Front" since thats about the depth of coverage in school. Even that should be enough raise some red flags somewhere in the vetting process and/or the speech writting.

Yeah, I can understand those listening to the speech not immediately picking up the connection, considering there was only one chance (rather than the vetting process) and people probably weren't paying much attention in the first place. I'd have hoped more would have, but its not that suprising. Its just the complete incompetence involved in those who vetted Hunka and who researched, wrote, and editted the speech that shockes me.

You're still ignoring my actual point. Either Im way more qualified to be a politician than I think or this should be a obvious answer. Do you think its a good idea for a politician to praise a former Waffen-SS member as a hero - do you think it will go over will with his colleges and voters? Surely its pretty obvious that no one will approve of it. Surely even a elementary school can understand that being even remotely accociated with the Nazi label won't make people like you.

Also, what fantasy land do you live in where representitives regularly actually make decisions based on what their voters want rather than what they, their party, or their donors want. Just look at everything from electoral reform, to censorship, to climate change.

The "in Ukraine" part was mostly for history nerds and those who'd want to play semantics. My point was that no one had the thought, "Hmmm. He fought against Russia, one of the Allies. That seems suspect." I wouldn't be shocked if a couple people missed it, but surely you'd have more than a couple people invlovled in planning this, and these are people for whom history is more relevant than most. Besides that, even if no one knew that Ukraine involved in the fight between Nazi Germany and the USSR, you'd hope there'd be someone to vet him who would at least find that out.

These are not connected thoughts. Someone who saved a cat stuck in a tree, who is also a murderer, is still a cat-saving hero. The murderous act does not invalidate the cat heroism.

No, but if the mayor planned to honour him in a speech on national television, it would be common sense to include something to the point of, "Despite coming from a rocky beginnings, he has made great strides and today, is a hero." in order to specifically recognize the act of valor and not anything else. Or, even more basic, pick someone who you know isn't a murder who achived something similar to honour. These aren't exactly complex ideas. But again we didn't even get that far, its common sense to do the research to even check if the person has a criminal background or something similar that would reflect badly on you to ignore (nonetheless praise). They couldn't even do that much. Even if you think it shouldn't reflect badly on them, it very obviously will, and it doesn't take a expect to know that praising a Waffen-SS member as a hero does not look good. Again, if they thought that was okay to praise him, why all the apologies and the resignation.

The representatives' job is to represent the people, not to make decisions for the people.

Yes, this is why they just sit there after we vote for them. They have no impact or imput on national policy or law whatsoever and should not be expected to have any knowledge on such matters. Its not like they're representing us in a goverment or anything.

You're twisting my words. I'm not saying they described him as a Waffen-SS hero. I'm saying they praised him as a hero, despite him being a Waffen-SS soldier (which, notably, is exactly the combat service they're praising him for, although again, not my point) without understanding the situation.

If they actually knew that the service they were thanking him for was as a Waffen-SS soldier, why the resignation and the panicked apologies. They clearly had no idea of who they were promoting as a hero or the context of his service. If they had, they would have mentioned it to get ahead of media attention, prepared statements to defend themselves, or even just picked someone who would have attracted less bad press. If our government officials don't know fairly basic history (esspecially at a time when it ties in to current politics) and can't even be bothered to understand what they're promoting as heroism, it doesn't bode well foe their ability to decide on policy that will affect millions of people.

Not ideology, but they did largely fight with the Nazi military. I'm aware of the partisan groups as well, but the average person won't be, and many of them are also pretty controversial as well. That said, my point wasn't whether or not Hunka is or isn't a Nazi ideologicaly. Its that telling the world a Waffen-SS soldier was a hero with no understanding of the situation at all is a terrible, stupid idea. If a government is honouring someone, they should, at the very least, know the details of what they're honouring them for, which they clearly didn't. If they did know they'd be honouring a Waffen-SS member, they would have avoided it for the bad press alone. Even assuming he joined purely to fight off the Soviets rather than any alligence to Nazism, and assuming he committed no war crimes, and they were okay risking the bad press, they should have known to check his background to confirm his innocence before presenting him as a hero in front of the world.

You just need to know who fought against the Russians in Ukrane during World War 2. Its not exactly a history degree. Even just assuming no one on the team had even a high-school level of history knowledge (already a bad sign), the fact that no one thought to actually look into the deeds they were praising him for is pathetic.

As opposed to siding with the other side that had just also killed roughly 4 million Ukranians before the war started, and also committed many atrocities against the Ukranian people (which contiued to happen as the Soviets retook Ukraine). I'm not saying that joining the Waffen-SS to fight the Soviets is just (and I'm also making the assumption that no other war crimes were committed, as so far, there is no evidence Hunka was involved in any war crimes) but living in a time where he can't exactly Google the death counts the Nazis and Soviets, and having experienced the Soviet rigime's brutality, its not clear cut. Given the information currently available, its entirely possible a lot of his town or family were killed in the Holodomor and he joined believing fewer would be killed under Nazi rule. Given the death counts under Stalin's rigime, its not a strange thought, esspecially after living through it, and not yet spending much time under Nazi rule. It doesn't even have to be that he thought the Nazis were less dangerous to be a reasonable choice. For example, this was already late in the war, so if he felt confident that the Allies would win, he could have justified fighting hoping that neither the Soviets nor the Nazis would end the war in control of Ukraine. I'm not saying any of these is the case, but until we have some evidence that it isn't one of these, its far more grey.

To be clear, I don't think working with the Nazi army is a good thing, the Nazi rigime was obviously worse, but given the information he would have had access to at the time and the still-unclear background, theres no evidence he agreed with any of the Nazi beleifs or actions (other than fighting the Soviets). Until we find something more substantial, its not clear if he was/is the Nazi (ideologically) he is currently being portrayed as, or just someone who feared continued Soviet genocide of his people. We should not assume he is guilty while there is still room for uncertainty. On the other hand, if more substantial information about his motive comes out, or evidence that he was involved in any of the Division's war crime's against the Polish people, than I have no issue with leaving him to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but we should be sure that he was involved in the Nazi attrocities rather than just trying to protect his country from Soviet atrocities.

You should add an edit to your original comment, to clairify.

I think the one area that Quake really falls flat on modern playthroughs, is the level aethetics. The assets all look fine, in my opinion, but the levels visually, all just feel so bland and same-y. So much of it is just brown-grey tunnels. The closest thing to a landmark within a level tends to be a stained glass window. It really highlights just how much of an improvement Half Life was. While I enjoy Quake on a moment-to-moment basis, I find it gets a tad tedious purely because everything looks too similar, and it doesn't feel like you're making much progress.

I mean, at least in this summary (the article is pay-gated) it sounds like his point is valid. The line, "The fact that he was a soldier does not mean that he was a Nazi.", seems suspect, but I assume by "Nazi" he means the ideology or the political party directly, which could be true. Again, working purely off the summary. As Himka stated, those in Ukranian divisions may have been motivated to volunteer by fear of continued Soviet atrocities after witnessing the Holodomor and other crimes against humanity, or by vengence for these crimes.

If Yaroslav Hunka did join for these reasons, I think the matter is a lot more grey. If you watched your family and friends die to a violent, genocidal government, its not weird that you might be willing to work with another if you think they're a less immediately dangerous. Of course, if thats not the case, or he did support the Nazi party, the ideology, or if he was involved in any of the division's war crimes, then all of this is out the window and he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. My point is that he should be proven guilty before being counted as a supporter of the Nazi ideology, and there is still room for error currently (unless there's social media posts or other evidence I don't know of).

Edit: And just to be extra clear in case it wasn't obvious, I think supporters of the Nazi ideology, its modern incarnations, facists, and racists are all terrible. I think anyone who supports these belefs should be denounced and avoided. I just also believe that it is important to be certain of the accusation of something so awful before condeming someone for them.