this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
76 points (92.2% liked)

Asklemmy

44152 readers
1402 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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...

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 59 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

I’ll answer your question!

Pretty sure I’m on the wrong side of vegetarianism. I love animals, I think they’re worthy of love and consideration from us. I know becoming a vegetarian or vegan would reduce harm to animals, and I’m pretty sure it’s the morally correct thing to do. It’s also hard, it’s alienating, and I know every time I’ve attempted it in the past it’s triggered disordered eating.

My current stance is that society should embrace vegetarianism. If the government were to make a law granting animals status that protected them from being killed for food, I’d support that as a moral good. However, I’m not willing to be fully vegetarian in a carnivorous society, there are too many drawbacks. I know this is hypocritical and kinda intellectually pathetic of me but there it is :(

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

My mother does wildlife rescues, birds are mostly, then goes home and cooks a roast chicken.

She knows it's hypocritical. Cognitive dissonance is weird.

Also, it's not so alienating. I attend dinners with my family, and I'll eat roast vegies, and bring a side-dish for myself. Over time a few of my friends became vegan (I didn't convince them to) and it's exciting to share recipes.

If nothing else, reduce your meat intake over time.

As with most changes people make, the more drastic, the more unlikely it is to stick.

When I became vegan I was a slut for KFC burgers, and I "failed" a few times, but I just kept reminding myself it's not good for anyone, and mustered up the will power to drive past, and eat at home instead.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 50 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (21 children)

Adding an easy or "story" mode to a game doesn't inherently make it worse. You can still play it with difficulty cranked up to "Dark Souls" or whatever. The fact that there is a separate mode that others can use does not affect you; you need not use it yourself.

"Story mode" is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else. Instead of cheapening the game, it actually expands its influence on the world.

All that being said, no, no game is strictly obligated to be accessible, but why cheapen your art by not making it so?

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, if you want your story to reach broad audiences, story mode is good. If you have an artistic vision and can only see your story learned as such, do that. Not supplying story mode is like not supplying condiments at a restaurant. Limiting your client base.

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago

“Story mode” is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else.

This is very insightful.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 37 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

OP, you've made the classic mistake of putting your opinion in the post instead of as a comment, now everyone is replying to your opinion in top level comments instead of your question.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

This is the best practice, especially for AskLemmy but it also applies to news and other media threads. It's best to put your personal thoughts and opinions in a top-level reply, while keeping the post body to clarifications or summary of the posted question or media.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

I am always on the right side of any discussion. Otherwise I wouldn't be on that side.

[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A lot of people seem to feel this way. Don’t let it become a tautology, however. It’s your opinion because you think it’s correct, NOT it’s correct because it’s your opinion. For example, plenty of folks justify homophobia because gay people make them feel icky and never examine whether or not their intuition is actually correct. You still have a responsibility to examine your conclusions on a topic and readjust as necessary!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yep. I don't argue for things I don't believe are the side I should be on. Sometimes I make tongue-in-cheek arguments (think A Modest Proposal) but that's not in a discussion. I don't get into arguments as a sport or to make people angry, so why ever be on a side I think is 'wrong'?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Veganism. I don't have any problems with most vegans. Most go through a phase of trying to convert you, but the ones I know and associate with have come out the other side. We all know that these positions would make the world a better place. I don't think I have the will to do it. Might be wrong though.

[–] VeganicTankie@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

What about not trying to annoy vegans?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] gjoel@programming.dev 21 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

Pronouns. I get that they matter a lot to some people, and of course it's super annoying (if not worse) to be referred to in the wrong way, but I find it unreasonable to demand being referred to something outside of the gender binary, simply because that's the way language works.

I am aware that English has used "they" for a person of unknown gender for ages, but for one, I don't think it's something that you should demand people call you when they actually know your gender, but also I really hate that this is making its way into other languages like my own, that has never had this convention. Inventing entirely new pronouns is just ridiculous, I have a hard enough time to remember your name.

I am also aware that language evolves, but this is not evolution, it's forced, and if one group of people can try to force a change they prefer, I'm as much in my right to resist it if I don't like it.

People are super passionate about this though and in fifty years I'm sure I'll be seen as a fossil for not getting with the times now - in fact I'm sure certain people see me like this now.

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Using someone's preferred pronouns is a sign of mutual respect, your refusal to do so is a sign of disrespect to those around you. It's really that simple, bud.

Do you call people Johnny when they tell you their name is John? It's literally the same thing, they've explained how they'd like to be addressed, and deviating from that uninvited is just rude.

I get that they matter a lot to some people, and of course it's super annoying (if not worse) to be referred to in the wrong way

It's dehumanizing and disrespectful, it's not annoying. I've had family members refuse to use an individual's pronouns, but in a heartbeat correct themselves for referring to a pet by the wrong pronoun. I've had people go out of their way to call me "man, guy, dude, bruh" when I'm fem presenting, and I'm the only woman they're speaking to that way while I get the "I talk like that with everyone, bruh," excuse.

and if one group of people can try to force a change they prefer, I'm as much in my right to resist it if I don't like it.

Correct, but then you don't get to complain, like you are, that people get upset with you about it. You're not free from the consequences of those around you simply because you have the right to feel differently on something like basic human respect for your fellow people.

I don't get to complain that no one wants to have dinner with me just because they don't like me taking food off their plates, even though I don't agree with that societal norm.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

There's a guy on here with great opinions and I like to hear him talk, but he refers to himself in the third person all the time and it makes it hard for me to take him seriously. It can be a real drag on the conversation to suddenly be conscious of the pronoun of an individual, when you just want to speak to them like an equal.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Language evolves because people force it to. It's not a natural organism independent from our choices. We choose taboos, we choose meaning, we choose pronunciation, we choose loanwords. It's all evolution. The idea that it's "forced" is ludicrous because no one can take words from you nor force you to use them. Your words are your own and no one is capable of stopping you from speaking them. But, if you choose not to respect the wishes of others, you will suffer consequences.

The reason some languages have a gender binary is often because that society forced a gender binary on people to control them. There are plenty of non-Euro languages that have no gender binary built in. Language is an active participant in social oppression and changing language is an active countermeasure to that oppression and indeed a tool in shaping future society.

Inventing entirely new pronouns is no more ridiculous than inventing yet another television show character or yet another tiktok dance craze or yet another romance novel or yet another $15/month subscription service that does the same things other service do or writing yet another magazine column.

We put effort where we care. That's how we work. Where you put your effort shows you what you care about.

[–] greedytacothief@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (8 children)

I know a few trans or nonbinary folks. They either go by he, she, or they. I have yet to meet someone who doesn't. Then again I live in a weird progressive rural community.

But if someone asks me to refer to them a particular way, sure what not? It means more to them than it means to me.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

Asking (paraphrasing) "hey what are you wrong about but unwilling to admit?" and then sticking a (metaphorical) "I think Nickleback is a pretty good band" opinion in the middle of it feels like a harder challenge than the designers of AskLemmy were intending

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I thought about it a bit when making this post and I felt like not giving an example would make people come with crazy political opinions which would probably be a bad time. Maybe it still wasn't the best approach, admittedly.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 18 points 3 weeks ago

That’s not how I operate. If I know I’m on the wrong side, I change sides.

[–] HipsterTenZero@dormi.zone 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I think TTRPGs should be unbalanced. Balance is a construct of games, and the fictional worlds the players will interact with are less immersive when everything is predictably tuned and equal. I think the fiction of a rogue being about as good as a fighter at combat is stupid. I think rust monsters and undead creatures that hurt your stats are way better than dire boars and skeletons who just shoot you with bows. I think that when rocks fall, things should die. These all contribute to the fantasy world seeming more dangerous, more 'real', like a spectral hand isn't shielding you from the worst the world has to offer.

I also recognize this is my dark fantasy bias yapping away

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] davel@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There isn’t really a “right” side to that one. If developers want to disappoint some potential customers and leave money on the table by not creating an easy mode, that’s their prerogative.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MrJameGumb@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

You know you don't have to play the easy mode right? You can just change the mode in the settings. Most games default to the standard version anyway.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, this thread was entertaining until I read this comment

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

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

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

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks 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.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode.

That's a valid stance. It's ok to make art which is not intended for everyone, or even the majority.

However, if you're charging people money for it and they are surprised by the difficulty and can't enjoy it as a result, I think that could be a potential ethical issue. But if you make it clear it's a difficult, challenging game, then I see no problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Imo, games shouldn't have an easy or a hard mode. They should progress from easy to hard. Think super mario world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wuphysics87@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

The right way to comment on this post is not to answer OPs question, but rather offer your take on their take.

I did all the things at once!

Opinions change, but sometimes the discussion doesn’t come up a second time. There are more than a few positions I’ve taken that I’ve since changed my mind about, one of which is certifications. While not necessarily a requirement in IT, having one would be immensely helpful right now, and so would having any kind of degree. Not only would it assist with a job search, but I’ve also been looking into moving to another country, and these things are almost always listed as something they look for during approval.

I’ve also been on the wrong side of whether or not to change career paths.

I’m trying to get back into gaming, and one of the things I appreciate most is a true, authentic experience that the developer intended, not something that was trimmed down or made easier for the sake of bringing in the most money or using other gimmicks to increase player count. I used to think it was best to include an easy mode, but after experiencing it, I can see it’s really not the same game, like you said. This was a relatively recent realization, too, one that I didn’t know I was on the wrong side of until I saw it firsthand.

Distro choice is another issue. I didn’t want to admit that I’ve fallen behind on that one, but I’m trying to get into some of the gaming-specific distros now after seeing what’s available.

I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection, and these are just a few of the things I’ve realized I was wrong about. It’s not that I needed to be convinced of anything; I just couldn’t admit it for whatever reason. I’m trying to work on a lot of things right now.

load more comments
view more: next ›