Maybe you haven’t been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don’t want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?

In my case: I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don’t have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren’t actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can’t really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn’t actually be playing the same game after all…

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 hours ago

    That human rights really matter in the coming upheaval. The doomsday glacier is probably insurmountable for civ to overcome and that level of change in sea level within a decade to century and a half is going to change everything. Most of the worlds cities are not viable. From what I have seen, the long estimates are all biased and unreliable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yEj9JVRhjA

    On the bright side, speculative long term land investments might yield a large sum of money. Shallow keel ferry and airboat operators stand to make a fortune.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Well, this thread was entertaining until I read this comment

      Not mad though, this is what people should be talking about

      • j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Sorry depression is rather strong ATM. Basic needs not getting met hurts.

    • lorty@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’m not sure how the impending climatic doomsday is going to make human rights unimportant?

      • j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        It is an abstraction, an anecdote really. When ordinary people are collectively in dire straights, there is little time or voice for those on the edges that become collateral damage. It is like the military when an army is being pursued in the field by another superior force–the wounded and baggage train support that are unable to fight are left behind. The ethics of the primary force are only circumstantially applicable. No one cares about the disabled or outliers when the attorneys judge and jurists are in crisis mode. While those examples are poor in their applicable timelines and the medium scale big picture. If one abstracts another few layers higher, at the decades to more centuries and even lifespans of civilizations perspective views, the overall stresses and strain on a civilization alter the landscape of the philosophical and morality. Civil rights struggles had little meaning or traction during a world war. Martial law is a mechanism that extinguishes all civil rights in a single mechanism.

        I’m not taking sides to making excuses for the behavior of others. It is just my intuition and curiosity allowed to roam freely in the good and the bad without distinction in an attempt to think without bias.

        When someone tells me of an unprecedented population displacing event, I see the refugee crisis and disproportionate effects on the poor and disadvantaged. The larger the scope of the poor people problem the larger will be the numbers of people on the edges that fall through the cracks. The experience is empirical from someone that has fallen through the cracks.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I think the logic is essentially right wingers keep winning elections. Their supporters tend to argue first and foremost it’s a win against “woke” while the money/interests behind it tend to be “let’s burn this planet down and get ALL the oil.” If the Left conceded on say trans issues or whatever, maybe we’d win, whixh would undoubtedly benefit the billions who may die because of climate change issues.

        (Unsure if this would work or if it’d just split the left etc myself but I think that’s the logic.)

        An analogy a friend made while making this argument was that the Civil War was essential for Black emancipation etc and we can all agree it was a good thing. BUT, especially in those days, if abolitionists had also demanded trans recognition or whatever, maybe fewer states would’ve joined the Union or maybe the movement would’ve never gotten off the ground and there’s a possible future wherein Black people might still be slaves because, even with the best intentions, we didn’t pick our battles.

        It’s a utilitarian answer to a Sophie’s choice.