[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 13 points 2 days ago

The way the main officer just acting so casual is really reinforcing the "banality of evil" phenomena. They literally sound so casual and dead inside, it's almost like they don't even realize what they're fucking doing. agony

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Your first paragraph is fine, because your argument is a non-argument and is mostly just stating what people believe (people can both condemn AI and the Amerikkkan Education System).

Your second one is just a lack of investigation and a false contradiction. It is not contradictory to believe both the system designed by capitalists to train factory workers and managers is awful and the glorified Markov statistics algorithms masquerading as intelligence are bad. Also, the grievances you talk about are entirely valid, as they are based upon the nightmare education system that many Euro-American countries have. And sure, maybe your situation was different, but that's a good thing for you because you didn't have to deal with a shit school. It's just not acceptable though to turn around and say that just because you don't know how bad it is, that it isn't bad. I won't deny your trauma, and you shouldn't deny others. Simple as that.

Your third one is just bad. Your argument is "Kids sometimes make bad choices, so they shouldn't be able to make other choices" - am I getting that right? To that, I say that literally everyone makes bad choices, and just because someone expresses bad judgement doesn't mean that it is right to revoke them rights or their ability to consent or revoke their consent to situations. Kids often know a lot more about themselves than people think. Not to an absurd degree, but contradictory to the "Children as unthinking property" thesis that the bourgeoisie establishment constantly touts.

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago

OMFG! THANK YOU!

I'm so tired of people acting like bad things are good. I know human nature is a prime beacon for chuds, but if we wanna talk about human nature, one of the things that seems so fucking lacking in a majority of people is theory of mind and empathy. It's so ironic, because people talk about how humans "invented" those things, but then they go around and not even do it.

And I know a lot of people do have proper theory of mind and empathy BUT NOT ENOUGH FUCKING PEOPLE agony-consuming

I can understand that "Happy candy land where nothing goes wrong and everyone perfectly understands each other and nobody slights each other in any way" is a day dream, but people treat day dreams like we shouldn't even consider them.

JUST BECAUSE PARADISE IS IMPOSSIBLE DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T STRIVE FOR IT. The impossibility or difficulty of good things should never sway us from actually trying to make an effort to achieve them. Sorry for ranting, but I just needed to let that out.

Good post! doggirl-thumbsup

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 15 points 2 days ago

I have literally zero investment in the Hollow Knight franchise, but I hope my comrades enjoy their gaming treats.

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Broke: Gambling Game (Balatro)

Woke: Game Gambling (Lootboxes)

Bespoke: It's Unambiguously Just Literal Gambling (SLOT MACHINES!!!)

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 18 points 3 days ago

Impossible. American Christians love slop.

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 13 points 3 days ago

Well then, to that end, all I can do is repeat myself by saying that time will tell.

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 28 points 3 days ago

Not trying to downplay your arguments or anything, but it's called critical support for a reason. Of course, different levels of critique are warranted for different situations depending on the nature of an anti-colonial or anti-capitalist movement, keyly if it is principled or not.

For instance, support for Russia warrants an extremely large amount of critique due to it's non-inherent revolutionary character. Russia, while we can still cheer their victories, will ultimately not lead the proletariat towards socialism, and thus, warrant a large amount of critique.

China, on the other hand, has a far more legitimate and founded revolutionary character, which is why we critique it less. China has expressed interests and has lead endeavors to bring the proletariet closer to socialism, even if flawed, and thus, deserves more support and less critique.

In this way, Burkina Faso is proving itself to be closer to Russia than it is to China. While it can always change, as everything can, Burkina Faso is positioning itself less as an inherently socialist country, but more so as a conditional opponent of US dominance, with the condition being sovereignty.

The reason for this is the question of nationalism vs. socialism. While a third world nationalism is good for rallying support, it must be replaced by socialism upon gaining considerable power lest it indulge in moves like these.

But, we lack a lot of information as to a key question - whether Ibrahim Traore considers his project a nationalist one or a socialist one utilizing nationalism. And to that, only time can tell. But for now, this action is a counter-revolutionary one, and as such, we must condemn solely this action, with continued support towards Burkina Faso's anti-imperialist operations.

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 22 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Feminists: Uhh... Hot take, I guess, maybe you shouldn't portray all of your feminine characters as always horny lust demons?

Rightists: pigmask-off ALL VIDEO GAMES MUST INCLUDE THE 14 WORDS. THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.

G*mers: same-picture

Honestly, this makes me want to write an essay on the natural "moderate" nature of leftism and the natural "extremist" nature of rightism, as in the nature of humanitarians (catch-all term for leftists, primitive communists, whatever) to not immediately resort to violent action, contradictory to the nature of exploiters and oppressors to immediately resort to violent action. I know it doesn't have any basis in modern-day politics as the contradictions are contradicting and even the leftists are justifiably angry, but it'd still be a good thing to analyze, I think.

26
HEY, YOU! (hexbear.net)

Yes, you!

gunpoint only-good-gamer gunpoint-alt

Open a new tab and comment the tagline below.

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 28 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

waltuh We had a good thing, you [NONSTRATEGIC] son of a [GUN]! We had theory, we had praxis, we had everything we needed, and it all ran like clockwork! You could have shut your mouth, followed the theory, and made as much communism as you ever needed! It was perfect! But no! You just had to blow it up! You, and your pride and your ego! You just had to be the man! If you'd done your job, known your place, we'd all be fine right now! /j

This is bad. I don't wanna go super parasocial (yes, I have an extremey bad tendency to moralize people and inclination to parasocializing), but this sucks. /srs

[-] GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net 17 points 3 days ago

Do reactionaries and billionaires have to be killed? No.

Are they themselves making an extremely good argument for mob justice? Yes, absolutely.

It's my simple opinion that if you don't wanna get got by a luigi-dance, don't spend every waking hour fucking other people over.

41
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by GamersOfTheWorld@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

I know this isn't really related to leftism or anything, but I thought you wonderful people on the hexadic angular bruin website like it when people talk about special interests. I'll spoiler everything to make it digestible.

My bias for canonYes, I know diegetic essentialism is a plague, and I shouldn't like works over internal consistency / ideas over a more meta literary analysis, but I still do, as it's quite enjoyable to talk about diegesis and play around with it. This is just a declaration of bias for a consistent and full canon over a non-canon.

What is the pseudo-canon, and why SCP is the primary exampleA few day ago from writing this post, I made this comment on the previous megathread: https://hexbear.net/comment/6457308

It is my first talk of this on the website. My analysis is a little lackluster, and I wasn't very in depth. So, I'll try to talk about it a bit more, explaining the pseudo-canon as we go along.

The SCP wiki in particular maintains a policy of "no defining canon" meaning that nothing is offically canonical. However, this is de jure. If we look at the de facto side of things, there are very clearly established things as "fact."

Even though people are told to "curate their canons," to make their own universes by selectively interpreting the works provided to them, they more often than not go towards a very specific type of canon - the popular one. While this isn't necessarily wrong, it's an argument against the idea of the SCP mythology not holding a canon.

Let's talk about a key element: D-Class personnel. While, technically, they are not supposed to be defined, but instead interpreted by you, there is undoubtedly a common perception that defines what a D-Class personnel is.

The common and correct take via consensus is that they are prisoners, or in some cases, kidnapped individuals, who are forced to engage in tests deemed to hazardous for regular personnel.

If I were to say, for instance, D-Class personnel are actually volunteers who are given million dollar salary's and given the highest honors for their work dealing with anomalies, I would both be correct and wrong at the same time.

Correct in the sense that the "official" or at-least commonly touted rhetoric that there is no canon, but incorrect in the idea that 90% of the fan-base holds true and canonical the D-Class as prisoner idea.

This is the pseudo-canon. You are not officially or technically wrong, but nobody will consider your take on the subject as the preferable take to the popular one. In the best case scenario, a story containing the D-Class as volunteer idea will be a "fun experimentation" or "what if scenario" but rarely will it be considered apart of someone's canon.

The pseudo-canon is canonicity disguised as non-canonicity. If we move away from the wiki, we see this effect amplified by 100. Ask any casual SCP enjoyer (played a few games, read an article or two, watched some YouTube videos on it) and they will tell you the most mainstream and popular narrative as if it was fact.

And, indeed, if we look at those games or YouTube videos, by nature of HAVING to accept a specific idea of what the SCP mythos is in order to actually make their content, they create a canon. And most of the time, it is the most popular one.

The process of the pseudo-canonThe process of the pseudo-canon is a simple one.

We start out with canonical anarchy. A specific concept is undefined, vague, or whatever. Let's take who keeps the documents secret.

This was vague for the longest time, until a prolific author by the name of Dr. Clef invents the idea of RAISA (Recordkeeping and Information Security Agency) during a rewrite of the SCP-076 article. This is the second stage, where a concept is put out there. At this time, many concepts can be put out.

The third stage is standardization. People pick a concept, and slowly forget other concepts. Let's say somebody tried to publish an SCP article that said "The foundation's primary informational security thing is the Database Systems Enforcement Administration (DSEA)" or something like that.

In a world where the pseudo-canon was perfect at allowing people to entertain all concepts presented by all authors, both RAISA and DSEA would receive stories and tales, with neither of them taking precedent over the other.

However, it's pretty obvious that DSEA would get swept under the rug and RAISA would remain the thing that every author used whenever they want to write about redactions or whatever. By this point, standardization is complete. There can be other concepts, but people have already accepted one thing as canon, and nothing else is allowed to even come close to it.

Tl;dr: Canon anarchy, people don't really care or just make up whatever the want. Then suggestion, as people try to put out their ideas. Then it's standardization, as a singular idea is chosen as preferable to all others, and nothing is allowed to achieve or even come close to the same level of acceptance or "correctness" as the selected idea.

The flaws of pseudo-canonThe SCP wiki is a wiki about SCP. Not about mythology in general, not about spoopy scary things in general, but specifically about the SCP foundation. Sure, there is a canon in the SCP wiki which is about a what if scenario where the SCP foundation does not exist, but once again, refer to the idea of pseudo-canon, and how nobody is internalizing this idea or treating it as equal to the idea of the SCP foundation existing.

The SCP foundation as a concept is scarcely defined at moments, and most of it's definitions come not from discussion and consensus, but from proposition and consensus. Rather than sitting down and asking what the SCP foundation is, people just throw shit at the wall, and whatever sticks is canon to 90% of everyone.

"There is no canon" but anything that's popular enough is canon to the majority of individuals. The definition of what the SCP foundation is shifts every day, with more and more people flinging more and more shit at the wall.

This is a bad way to organize anything. Nobody wants to (or logistically can) agree on what the SCP foundation is, because it's an open project with millions of fans and thousands of writers. Once again, this is the SCP wiki, not the spoopy creatures wiki.

This wiki is centered around the SCP foundation yet can't be bothered to give a solid and unyielding baseline for what it is. The only thing that's constant is that people make shit up and if enough people like it, it's canon.

When you read an SCP article, you may find it enjoyable, and that's fair. But what you are not reading a cohesive and coherent diegesis. For every SCP article, you either have to rethink what the SCP foundation means (for stories that try to go against the pseudo-canon) or re-read the same old boring "SCP morally gray, save the world but also kinda mean" thing (for stories that conform with the pseudo-canon.)

I'm going to be honest, this is one of the least pressing contradictions there is. It's not actively harming anyone, and while some people might be mildly perturbed (like me), it's not going away anytime soon. But if we want to talk about solutions...

There is no middle ground between canon or non-canonThere are only two solutions to this contradiction.

The SCP wiki develops a vanguardist writing methodology where it removes a lot of freedom in exchange for narrative cohesion, losing it's "nothing is canon" and "curate your own content" messages.

or

The SCP wiki drops the SCP shit and becomes a generic scary monster wiki. It'll become a hub for everyone's ideas about anomalous entities, and it will be disorganized, chaotic, but it can also be fun.

Like I said, this is a non-pressing contradiction, and the SCP wiki can stay how it is for an extremely long time before any contradictions pop up. But, eventually, the contradictions will sharpen, and you can only blame the pseudo-canon at that point.

Anyway, this is long. You don't have to read it all or anything, but I hope you do, and I hope you enjoy it.

31

For most of my life, I've played very open games. I've played a lot of Rimworld, and I enjoyed the hell out of that shit because you can do a lot of things with all the different systems they offer you. Mods make it a trillion times better in some cases. I don't play it much anymore because of reasons, but it still influenced my tastes.

That's all to say I like open, moddable, "We give you a bunch of systems and mechanics, go wild" games, but I want to hear your opinions. Do you prefer more traditional, narrow games, or do you prefer open sandbox-y type games?

view more: next ›

GamersOfTheWorld

joined 6 days ago