Sentrovasi

I’m sorry but you’re wrong: effect can be used to mean to cause something to happen. This is different from affect’s verb form, which is to influence something.

Affect also has a noun form, if you’re curious. This duality of effect and affect having both noun and verb forms, even though each has a more popular common usage, is a common thing to misunderstand.

I think you fail to understand that a lot of the people replying to you are solely replying because of your tone. You’re not winning any argument against anyone because all they’re telling you is that you’re obnoxious. You can’t spin that into a win over racist people because you need to recognise that people can agree with you and still treat you with hostility.

You’re not standing up for anything by being volatile. The only reason why I’m even engaging with you on this is because of your original assumption that people who are making fun of the way you post must clearly be racists. If you can now agree that this is not substantively what they are talking about, and you are okay with that, then both of us can do without your moral grandstanding over how justified you are in doing this.

I just wanted to make sure you understood why people are treating you poorly, and will continue to treat you poorly into the future. These are not going to just be people who disagree with you. These will include people who agree, but think you’re a real piece of shit.

Nobody’s going to want to answer your “direct questions” or engage with your “assertions” (I’m leaving out “patience” because implicit in the idea of patience is manner, in which tone plays a big part and I still don’t think you see it).

Does that mean you “win”? I think maybe everyone will be better off if you go away thinking you do, but no, it really doesn’t.

This toxic way of thinking of needing to win conversations is also present in the first part of your anecdote where you claim that people used to “win” by asking you to calm down or stop using certain words. They’re not trying to beat you, they’re trying to engage in discourse that both sides can appreciate. If you literally cannot win an argument without resorting to namecalling or condescension, you really need to rethink the value proposition of your arguments.

And if you really think that you’ve won when people no longer want to engage with you, then, like I said before, maybe everyone is better off that way.

I mean, you literally called the guy stupid and criticised the post for a “complete lack of logic”: I agree with the other people that you write incredibly obnoxiously, especially if that’s what you regard as “polite”. Unfortunately claims of rationality can go hand-in-hand with a pseudo-intellectualism that is really grating when done in earnest.

Maybe rather than consider everyone else racist, you might do a bit of self-reflection and consider why people who clearly acknowledge that the main post is racist (see every other upvoted comment) still consider your post worse than the racism you’re criticising.

I didn’t think it was misleading, but when I read it I automatically thought the article was talking about the extent of pollution in the ocean, not what everyone else seems to be interpreting it as…

Just a small but very important correction: the article says 6 grams per serving. Giving them two extra teaspoons with the small amount that babies take is much more significant.

EDIT: A quick search said that one serving of baby food tends to be around 75g? That means that that’s 8% of it being pure sugar.

People don’t really like to read the articles before commenting, huh.

Knowing Stardew was such a beloved game, I knew I had to get context before judging the author because it could be read both ways.

People who assume games not changing = criticism are telling us more about their own uncharitable view of others than anything else.

EDIT: That said, if I were to offer criticism, I feel like the author gives too much credit to Stardew as though it invented or pioneered the tight gameplay loop: perhaps at least some mention could have been made to Harvest Moon, the game from which Stardew borrows - and perfects - most of its major systems.

Also to be fair, it doesn’t go anywhere with that thought that Stardew hasn’t changed. Felt a little low-effort, like a retrospective on Stardew that just basically listed what people liked about it.

Excuse me? Who are the original people in your book and which year is the baseline?

I’m someone who doesn’t have a huge stake in either side and still this take astounds me.

Seems like it would be exactly what you’d expect, i.e. not ironic at all.

Wouldn’t it eventually fill up with blood and holy water

How long? A week? More?

The only time I think I ever equate the left and the right is that both sides have gotten increasingly tribalist, which this meme ironically proves.

I guess the other time I equate the left and right is in that both sides are very reluctant to hold their politicians accountable for fear of losing to the other side (which is also a result of that tribalism) - even though the left is more willing to say Biden isn’t great, they’re still giving the DNC a free pass because Trump is worse, and rather than recognising that this election is really Biden’s to lose (he just needs to actually tone down on the things that his voter base doesn’t like), they’re blaming the conscientious objectors who choose to vote their conscience for not being a part of their tribe.

The enlightened centrist meme is a similar issue, where acknowledging any of this qualifies you as being outside of either tribe and therefore also a liability in this game. If it helps, I’m not American and can’t vote in your election anyway, so chill out a bit - I’m not losing your election for you (whichever side you’re on).

Yeah, agreed, but to be fair all of this is no longer criticism about why they didn’t use the metric system and actually acknowledges that people need visualisation sometimes.

TIL :)

But I know what one looks like, and I go to the zoo fairly regularly. I don’t know what a 1500kg weight looks like, because even for the things which are 1500kg, it’s not normally its defining characteristic.

To be fair, I actually find it more difficult to visualise 1500kg than a rhino (I just don’t normally interact with things on that scale), so it does help me in terms of knowing how big the satellite roughly is.

It’s weird cos you’re the only person bringing up pirating first (others are bringing it up as a talking point you’ve raised), and that’s not the dichotomy - it’s not dubious reselling sites or pirating, it’s Humble Choice, the topic of your post, where the games are already discounted, the developers have decided to opt in, and some money is actually going to charity.

Even if you bring up your original post as providing “options for everyone”, it was written in the spirit of advertising grey market sites as an alternative to Humble Choice, and therefore it’s entirely fair that others are bringing up the harms of grey market sites so that everyone knows what the risks are between them. I used to use those grey market sites as a kid more than a decade ago before I understood that they were a tool by scammers to make their money, and now I no longer use them. It would only be honest for you to have talked about that in your original post rather than ignoring it because the only alternative to you is piracy.

It’s probably more a dig at No Man’s Sky’s redemption. But I get the irony.

You’re wilfully applying a very stunted concept of “wanted” to a legal system that deals in fact. I’m not saying you don’t understand whatever it is you claim to be supporting. What I’m saying you do not understand is the concept of “wanting” and “mens rea” (as it applies in law, but also as it applies under your framework - you’ve chosen instead to just pretend it’s no longer relevant instead of redefining it under your framework - like I said, the laziest kind of science.) And there’s really no point in me repeating what I’ve said before.

Maybe what I’ll leave you with is a possible definition of “want” under your system, which is one step further in thought than it seems you’ve ever gone: an action is wanted if the action would have been taken with no immediate or overt external (needs to be defined) motivation. This means if they were abused as a kid and later this translated into abusing other people, they still wanted to abuse them.

(As a note, I’m not saying this is the correct definition, but this is what is needed for people to start discussing what should and shouldn’t be in this definition.)

Saying “nobody can want to do anything because determinism” is an incredibly lazy determinism because it’s starting with the axiom and then not bothering to come up with a proper framework to explain everything else in the world. If you continue to protest it not being lazy there’s really nothing else we have to talk about.

You don’t understand. Obviously everyone is a product of their environment. But after all of that, if the person wanted and intended to do something because of all of these different dispositions and upbringings and backgrounds, then they have mens rea.

Like I said before, it’s purely a finding of fact. Does it mean that there shouldn’t be mitigating circumstances? No, there might well be reasons to argue that they were only doing so out of desperation. Nonetheless, they had mens rea.

Recognising that there are all these complicated factors but not taking the time to at least make sense of them is the worst kind of determinism. Sure, there’s no free will in your conception. There still needs to be laws and concepts like mens rea still need defining to allow for the protection of “innocents” under the law.

Guilt and mens rea can be quite compatible with your admittedly strange idea of there being no free will (and yet trying to parse laws under a framework of people having free will), unless you believe that all acts are coercive (which is quite reductive).

All you need to ask yourself is if the person wanted and intended to do that, whatever the nexus of causes led up to them wanting to do the act.

It seems very weird (and a bit lazy) to subscribe to a framework of there being no free will and yet not even trying to contextualise the safeguards of the legal system to fit that framework. Sure you may agree with putting people in jail to prevent net societal harm, but mens rea is one of the checks to ensure that they will cause societal harm to others, and without being able to settle such a question of fact you will instead never be able to put anybody, even if they need to be put behind bars, there.