doomcanoe @ doomcanoe @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

160

Joined

8 mo. ago

I'm thinking the silhouette of a classic Area 51 style alien.

As someone who loves FFX, the change in map layout from previous games was a huge hurdle to get past for me as well. The maps were so linear that I often wondered why they even included a minimap. It felt like a sick joke.

That mixed with the loss of roaming a world map really made the game feel less "like an adventure" to me.

Now it definitely made up for it in other ways, the presentation, characters, mechanics, and quantity of enjoyable side content really carried the game to be one of my favorites. But those damn maps...

Don't hate us cuz you ain't us

Does entropy get prep time?

Wait, not trying to be a "cultist" here, but if Valve requires devs/publishers to "offer Steam Keys on other stores at the same price that you offer the game on Steam", then why do I keep finding Steam Keys much much cheaper elsewhere? Like, all the time...

Tim Sweeny! Is that you!?

Literally came to say this.

Too many to count then? Me too buddy, me too.

6? ish?

Sure, but this small window of context also still indicates that "he":

1. Doesn't trust her to not cheat
2. Wants to control who she can be around

Which sounds pretty toxic imho. Given that, if she wants to respond to toxicity with trolling, it certainly is pretty funny. Which seems to be the main point of the post, and the added nuance doesn't really undermine that.

Presumably the fact that she isn't hanging around his male friends when he is not around? Otherwise they would technically also be "her male friends". Beyond that, he probably has more context to trust his friends.

Apples to apples would be saying they should stop hanging around his female friends, but given how he is implied to act, I would think it unlikely he has any (or at the very least they are unlikely to want to fuck him).

Though frankly, if he is worried about her male friends to the extent that he wants her to stop hanging around them, then the relationship is already on shaky ground. Because he is overly possessive and controlling, and possibly also because she really is giving him reasons to feel insecure. If it's just the former, then her trolling his toxicity is very funny. If it's also the latter, then... well it's still kinda funny, but in a more mean spirited way.

So I'm not sure the nuance between the asks really changes the point of the post.

Compared to the usual game console os windows offers a A LOT of freedom

Compared to the usual jail cell, the prison yard affers A LOT of freedom, just because you personally hate prison does not make the statement any less true.

Sure, but just to clarify/reiterate my point, you can be a real member of a group that believes fake things.

That’s different from something like Judaism or Christianity whose views weren’t created by people with the intent of creating a faith.

I would disagree with this on a couple levels.

First off, we do have records of many faiths being created by compiling previously established beleifs. The Council of Trent compiling the cannonical faith of Catholic doctrine stands out as a great example.

And even if a faith was intentionally created, why should that undermine the concept that its adherents could claim to be real members? Buddhism for example was cannonically an intentionally constructed belief system.

I fail to see why a person who describes themselves as a Wiccan has any less right to choose their beliefs of their own accord, and then be counted as a real member of that group. Or alternatively, why a long standing faith system gets to be exempt.

Thanks for agreeing with and emphasizing my points! I thought using Jedi to elaborate the universality of my statement might be too subtle, so I'm glad you caught it.

But your last point about internal conflicts over authenticity within a religion did make me reconsider the necessity of "genuine" belief. Since spirituality is so personally definable, I guess all that is really necessary is for a person to claim the title. Technically, your papi was a priest despite a lack of a genuine belief.

We could (and people have) argue the requirements and definitions until we are blue in the face, but trying to get a working definition is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Sure, but that could be said about any belief system depending on when you start the clock.

While I don't personally believe in the authenticity of claims from any non-testable belief/faith/spiritual system, I do believe that any person who genuienly says they hold to one can fairly be called a member of that group.

Be it Wiccans, Christians, Scientologists, Saitanists, or Jedi. Hence why I say this is a linguistics conversation. An "authentic Wiccan" dosen't need our approval, nor is the validity of their beliefs relavent to them using the term to describe themselves.

That's a linguistics debate. Are all Christians fake christians just because the god they believe in is an imaginary friend? Or are they real christians because they actively believe in their imaginary friend?

Or was your argument that the age of a belief lends creedence to it's legitimacy regardless of its truth value?

Pardon the trite advice, but it really is a marathon, not a sprint.

How ever you're feeling is a-okay, but if you find things to look forwards too, lean into them.

I've got my beliefs sorted, I want to be able to express myself however I choose. Including using censored curse words if I so choose.

And my point is, as I've said a few times, that I find it funny how censorship has gone from "polite" to "offensive".

What if I don't "not want to swear", what if I want to used self-censored curse words?

Should I sacrifice my freedom of speech to appease others? Cuz that sounds an awful lot like censorship to me.

Edit to answer your edit: Oh, and this is not missing the original point... at all. It is more than fair to say who ever originally censored the post was doing so against whoever originally posted it's wishes and that's obviously uncalled for and uncool.

But when that was screen capped and posted here, OP didn't care to un-censor it or look for an uncensored version. They were forced to preform a kind of "Topsy-turvy" censorship, in which their original post was considered "offensive language", and had to re-upload the image to appease the crowd (though OP clearly appreciated the effort the other lemming put into changing it, so it's not like they were "un-censored against their will". So not really a big deal frankly). Still, that leads very nicely into my original (and thus the original) point.

My original point is just that I find it funny how censorship used to be polite speech, and is now considered impolite in circles such as these. And that point is aging like fine wine with how much people are trying to tell me that my freedom of speech is offensive to them. (Sure, you could say you don't find it technically offensive, but you are asking me to change it or otherwise telling me it's the "wrong" way to speak).