Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)TE
Posts
13
Comments
1,098
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Xenogears. 80-hour game, and that’s without grinding for everything. And, it probably would have been close to twice as long if they’d been funded enough to complete it. As it was released, the second disc began with a 2-hour cutscene with a save point in the middle, which essentially summed up most of the second half of the story. Amazing game. Like playing through an entire mecha manga.

  • She made a direct reference to the slogan used by the guy who murdered an insurance company’s CEO, then said, “you people are next.” That absolutely can reasonably be construed as a direct threat of violence. Whether or not you think the person making the threat will actually do it is another question, but the context and grammar the direct threat interpretation totally logical.

  • I don't believe that "You people are next." is a direct threat.

    Sounds pretty direct to me, especially in the context of recent events. I don’t fault the CS rep at all for reporting it to her superiors and the police. Totally reasonable to be wary of copycat crimes or just similar acts of violence against healthcare insurers in general.

  • I don’t think she was actually making a threat, but she sure chose to sound like she was, which was fucking stupid on her part. Given how the rest of the evidence makes it clear the threat wasn’t serious, I don’t think she should be charged as such, but perhaps a lesser charge that affords her a fine or something. Can’t let people get away with that shit, but charging her like she’s making a serious threat of violence is a waste of taxpayer money.

  • Yeah, people will probably get angry and say mean things to you but those are just words which can be ignored. Offence is taken, not given.

    This is naïve. The no one likes being insulted and downvoted for expressing their views. Sure, it doesn’t bother some people as much as others, but it’s not a conscious choice to “just ignore it,” as though that will prevent any negative feelings. The reality is that people with unpopular views stay silent to avoid these consequences, and that’s an entirely rational choice. You would do better to spend your time chastising people who attack those with unpopular views than to try to convince those with unpopular views to willingly expose themselves to online abuse.

  • I grew up rich and inherited my wealth and I’m still a leftist, so I know there are exceptions to the rule I just gave. I didn’t mean to imply that all rich people are conservative and it’s a function of wealth. I just meant that while many leftists on Lemmy demand the rich empathize with the poor, I don’t think enough of them empathize with the rich—particularly the self-made rich.

    You wanna know what the best thing about my inherited wealth is? I don’t have to plan for retirement. This leaves me free to work a job that doesn’t pay well, but affords me the opportunity to help people less fortunate than me (community therapist). I don’t think enough leftists on Lemmy realize how many of us are out there. It’s the problem of a handful of bad actors spoiling things for the bunch. It doesn’t matter how many Warren Buffets are out there; a single Jeff Bezos sets the bad example.

    But it’s the system. We need laws that prevent 90% of the wealth falling into 10% of the hands. We need laws that stop the richest from paying the least taxes. But we also need oversight committees that stop government bodies meant to help the poor from pocketing the money—something leftists rarely want to acknowledge happens. I work in public health and I know how corrupt the system is. We can’t expect the we’ll-meaning wealthy to give up their capital to a system that is designed to line the pockets of other rich people.

  • I think a lot of far leftists are relatively poor and would change their tune as soon as they earned a lot of money. When you experience success it becomes a lot harder to excuse or sympathize with the people asking for handouts. Success is difficult. Yes, a lot of luck is involved and successful people do tend to give themselves too much credit, but it still doesn’t happen without a lot of effort from one ambitious individual. When you know you’ve built an empire, it’s a tall order being asked to give it up.

  • You’re citing a problem with our justice system though. Yes, that should be fixed, but it’s not the same as justifying vigilante justice. This should not be condoned. The system’s inability to prosecute and convict should be.

  • As much as I take some degree of delight in this CEO’s death, yes, his killer should face justice. Vigilante revenge should not be allowed in a civilized society. If we condone that, we open the floodgates for all forms of reprisal. As justified as I and others may feel this murder is, the CEO still should have had his day in court.

  • Energy-to-(organic)matter conversion + futuristic power generators makes feeding your population a triviality. That simplifies just about any economic system, which takes a lot of the complicated stuff out of government and class hierarchies.

    But Star Trek is a fictional utopia, much like Communism.

    In reality, corruption would still mess up government in a “real world” Star Trek. I’m a casual Trekkie, but I don’t recall much detail about the Federation’s or Earth’s government structure. Do people still vote? Is it a benevolent military dictatorship? Who knows? And who cares? It’s not really relevant to the themes of the shows.

    Star Trek is founded on liberal ideas popular in the mid-20th century that humanity could achieve unity and peace if it just cast aside superficial differences like race and gender, allowing us to focus on exploring the universe once we’d gotten over fighting each other. That’s the very core of the entire franchise and I’m fine leaving it that way, unscrutinized, since it clearly doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s like how the force is best left a mystical property of the universe in Star Wars, rather than science-ized with medichlorians.

  • Just a reminder to people: if you remove anyone who has (or will have) children, from a certain moral perspective you're responsible for them never existing, which could be considered akin to murder. Just take that into account in your considerations. Might make this a much thornier question, ethically, for some.

  • I’ve always found it absurd that presidents possess the authority to grant pardons. It trivializes our judicial system and undermines its integrity. This power should not be vested in the presidency.