harmonea @ harmonea @kbin.social

Middle-aged gamer/creative/wiki maintainer

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

196

Joined

2 yr. ago

Being horny is harmless and fun. There would be a lot more chill in the world if people would stop being so wound up about it.

The best time to learn emergency lifesaving procedures is before you need them, but the second best time is when you need them. Being old fashioned about this could cost a life.

If you have a quicker reference people should bookmark for such cases, the kind thing would be to share it rather than judge. Else, panicking people will inevitably go where they know they can usually get fast instruction about any other topic.

Do you not know that actual news clips from actual news outfits get posted on youtube sometimes

People are clamoring around you in a huge chorus of it's fine just roll with it but frankly, I think your point of view is totally valid. While Larian did a great job making every path a valid way to the ending, you can really only ever lock yourself out of content with your choices.

Go too far down one of two branching paths? Hope you can pass a big fat skill check or two, or that one companion will bail. Hope you didn't like that character or want to see more of that content. (Oh, and if you do pass the skill checks, 10 minutes later the companion is like "ugh no it's fine you were right, forget I ever wanted to go that way even though I've been obsessed with it for the last 20 hours" in the name of railroading the character back in line.)

Get interested in the wrong quest too early? Hope you didn't want to finish the main side objective in that one area. No no, even though all the characters are still present, you don't get to finish it. Because we said so. Shoo along to the next place. Go. Get.

And here's hoping you don't get curious about the "evil" path - you lose multiple companions and a whole-ass cast of side characters that are meant to follow you through the game and gain one (1) bit of interesting new content to replace them. Is it still interesting? Absolutely, but it's a consolation prize compared to how much you lose.

It took me 3 playthroughs or so before I finally felt like I was on a save where I was having a good 80%+ of the intended experience. And yeah, you can replay it for what you missed, but not everyone has time for that, especially in a game this immense. I know I've started it up to make my fourth character about half a dozen times and Alt-F4ed during character creation as soon as I think about going through the parts I've thoroughly combed already.

BG3 is my GOTY by a long shot, but people should have more sympathy for this outlook. There are definitely right paths and wrong paths, and while they all lead to the end, the wrong paths have a lot less to look at and a healthy amount of rubbing your face in the fact that you did stuff in the wrong order ("Perhaps you could have...." ok thanks, narrator).

Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they're used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.

So let's ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These "professionals" should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.

I don't understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods -- shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever -- that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter's side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.

Doctors are held to a different standard because... the mental gymnastics say it's totally fine when it's a woman being denied service I guess?

If these healthcare "professionals" only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.

Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.

Idk man, I was just continuing the chain of references.

You'll be okay. We all have our pet peeves, and none of us can expect the world to abide by them.

No way. Why should OP change? He's not the one who sucks.

It's really not my problem that you viewed me pointing out 53 lt; 60 as "unloading."

And "normalizing" having a serious disorder is dangerous. This is not behavior that should be applauded. It dilutes the experience of those who do have it and saps the available resources. Again, not "unloading," just facts that can be verified with any professional in the field. None of this is coming from emotion.

Going to therapy is good. Absolutely, yes, 90% should go. At no point did I shame therapy, I just pointed out the numbers don't line up and it proves there is definitely self-diagnosis going on.

I'm aware. That was the point of me pointing out that you'd have to assume all 53% had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. It's incredibly unrealistic. And yet 60% have a disorder? There is absolutely self-diagnosis happening.

I was only discussing the definition of a disorder. But if you want to get into sophistry and impotent political venting, sure. If 60% of people can't make connections with others or hold down a job because of their mental health, I question anyone who would call that anything but a disordered society, and that includes you saying it's "the order of things."

That said, this is an informal self-reported poll with a possibly exaggerated headline. It's entirely possible the actual disorder most of GenZ has is self-diagnosis and identity culture, in which if one doesn't have a disorder or three, one becomes the weirdo in a group.

I found this line from the article especially telling:

The survey also showed that 2 out of 5 go to therapy and 53 percent have gotten professional help for mental health at some point.

Notice how 53% is less than 60? And we'd have to assume each and every one of the 53% was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder on those "at some point" visits to come close to supporting the headline's claim.

I think if measurable socioeconomic markers supported the 60% number, it would be bigger news. Are they more anxious, sure. But again... anxiety does not imply anxiety disorder. As it stands, publishing inaccurate headlines like this makes people take the real issues -- and there ARE a lot of big, pervasive societal issues at play -- less seriously.

(And because I know y'all need to hear it: if you, dear reader, have a professional diagnosis, none of this is talking about you.)

You interpreted the word "prevent" more strictly than I meant it I think, but you're not wrong.

The key word is "disorder" though.

Everyone experiences anxiety from time to time, just like everyone has minor bouts of depression or invasive compulsions. Some non-disordered might even still experience them often.

Not everyone experiences these feelings pervasively to a degree it prevents them from socioeconomic success (making friends, going outside, finding and keeping a job, etc).

Hey man, as long as you had fun.

People see it as a way to spread awareness about the fediverse alternatives that are out there. Like "hey, if you like this, there's more where that came from." It's not for viewers who are already here, but for those where the post inevitably travels.

I dunno. Both watermarking and being annoyed at the watermarks seem like a waste of energy to me. If people are going to generate content, I'm not going to sass them about how unless it makes something about the content worse (harder to read etc).

Are they still working on buffing the shit out of the same modern day protagonist as before or what? I only got about halfway through Odyssey (but looked up the ending) and skipped Valhalla.

It's like using a very fine-grit sandpaper on your legs, so if that's what you were imagining... yes? Maybe? You basically slowly buff off the hair.

Consider yourself lucky and walk away like you just dodged a bullet

People can also apply the slightest semblance of critical thinking and realize most gaming journalism outfits, no matter their questionable quality, will realize they won't last long if there are true spoilers in the titles. Therefore this isn't really a spoiler.

Like they're obviously going to phrase things in ways that get more engagement, which is why it's a crucial skill on the internet today that readers need to think critically and not just accept headlines literally.

I'm not saying it's right, but jfc man, you have to develop skills to engage with the internet you have, not the internet you wish you had. I really feel no sympathy for people who thought this was a spoiler. At least this is a cheap lesson in gullibility instead of a costly one.