NoneOfUrBusiness @ NoneOfUrBusiness @fedia.io

Send me bad puns. Good puns welcome too.

---

Read more

Posts

24

Comments

5,439

Joined

1 yr. ago

Then they label the intended difficulty with "recommended" and say that will give the best experience and that if you choose a difficulty higher or lower you might impede the intention of it.

You're missing the point, which is weird because I explicitly stated it. To repeat, an artist might not want to create an inferior version of their art, irrespective of the utility of doing so. Art is an egotistical affair.

I really don't see the problem with having options.

Options can make sense in some games but not in others; a developer deciding not to include them has likely either figured they wouldn't work with the game's structure, wouldn't be a good use of their time or both. Difficulty options are simply not a one size fits all solution, for the same reason it wouldn't make sense to demand all painters make colorblind-friendly versions of their paintings.

Random Silksong shill here (all hail Bilewater), what are you struggling with in act 3?

I meant that the story/easy mode wouldn't conform with their vision. To expand on my example, if your game is portraying a grueling trek through a swamp where enemies abound and rest is scarce, the struggle would be an inalienable part of the experience; removing the struggle would fundamentally alter the story being told through the game. It's not about their vision being intact or not; it's about not wanting to intentionally make an inferior version of their art.

Then your president managed to be worse than narco terrorists. How does that feel?

Little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

The Jewish Israeli official is a Hamas antisemite, y'all.

But don't you know NYC forgot?!

I wish her a long and painful death.

I mean, given that humans now cultivate them en masse they are succeeding given that the task is to reproduce.

then wash hands with "Israel is the only safe place for American jews. If they face problems in America, they should immigrate here."

That is literally their pitch. Zionists want Israel to be the only safe place for Jews. Why do you think Israel is so chummy with the Western far right?

I mean, presumably because it'd compromise their vision for the game or some such? Some games use gameplay as part of the storytelling, so nontrivial difficulty swttings would compromise the story being told (for example if the game wants you to experience a gruelling trek through a hostile area). Now that doesn't mean a story mode or similar is bad, but there are reasons to consider for a game dev to consider such settings incompatible with their game. Also in a game with more complex mechanics difficulty would be more complicated than player and enemy stats, and a dev might simply consider implementing satisfactory difficulty settings not a good use of their time.

I mean the libs (as in the center to center right) are absolutely going to get owned when that happens.

Nope, your best hope is still mass popular resistance. Just, you know, gotta get people to turn out on weekdays.

Yeah... smells like bigotry. Here's Reuters on the subject: https://www.reuters.com/world/germany-bans-muslim-interaktiv-association-searches-properties-2025-11-05/. Notably,

In a position paper shared on the YouTube channel of the face of Muslim Interaktiv, Raheem Boateng, the group affirmed its support for the German constitution but rejected any state interference in its understanding of Islam. "We recognise the validity of the Basic Law (constitution) as the normative order of the Federal Republic. It is precisely this regulatory framework that guarantees us, as Muslims, the right to exist in Germany," according to the position paper.

Now I have literally no idea what these guys do (though calling for a caliphate in Germany is weird as fuck), but DW is pushing a narrative here.

"We will respond with the full force of the law to anyone who aggressively calls for a caliphate on our streets, incites hatred against the state of Israel and Jews in an intolerable manner, and despises the rights of women and minorities,"

Holding demonstrations is aggressive now? Also he just had to suck Israel's dick here. Also obligatory ban AfD first.

I mean I'm not exactly sad about America's ongoing death either (let's just hope it sticks), but that's no excuse for bigotry.

You won't have a democracy by 2027, let alone 2028. Your constitution is dead.

Uh... cope.

I'm almost 100% sure, that if Harris had won, my neighbors wouldn't be rounded up and disappeared.

Sure, but she didn't, which is my point. What you're describing isn't a model for success. I'm pretty sure I said this in my reply, but to repeat: If you don't scratch others' backs, they won't scratch yours. It's really that simple. There are plenty of people to whom genocide in Palestine is as or more important than everything you just listed; you can either cooperate with them or do your own thing, and I'm sure you can tell which one the oligarchy wants you to do. Hint: Apes together strong. To again repeat myself, we've literally just seen this happen in the general; Harris's pro-Israel agenda alienated enough people that she lost the election, and anyone doing the same thing as Harris will suffer the same result. What you're advocating for is trying to fit a round peg into a square hole; you can talk at length about how awesome it'd be if the round peg fit into the hole (let's ignore for a second that the hole is genocide), but it simply won't.

Probably not, but full on genocide at the scale we are currently seeing?

The full scale genocide has been going on since day one. It's progressed more because more time has passed, not because there has been any fundamental change in American policy toward Israel. The implication that Israel's 2025 rampage is any different from its 2024 rampage is blatant Democrat propaganda. The killing, the starvation, the rape, all of it has been going on since October 8th 2023.

If people aren't ready for a full swing-around to progressive politics

Umm... they absolutely are. Almost every progressive policy position you can think of is supported by the majority of Americans. You'll piss off reactionaries, but you'll always piss off reactionaries; that's why they're reactionaries.

Sudden change can lead to backlash by people who hate change, but slow change can dig far deeper hooks with less resistance.

Realistically this only works one way. You can trick your average person into being the frog in the boiling pot, but the rich and powerful (aka the people you're actually pissing off with progressive politics)? Absolutely not. They're on to that stuff, that's why progress always comes (or at least starts) with large movements and flashy acts of resistance; slow progress will simply fizzle into nothing or be rolled back faster than yuu can push for it. Also "you can have human rights but you have to Wait™" is always going to piss off people, who will flock to whoever promises (truthfully or not) to get them what they want now. People can tolerate incompetent leaders, but not ineffectual leaders.

I will pick a less perfect candidate that will help protect those around me.

And uh... are those around you protected now, or are they at the mercy of the Gestapo like everyone else in America? See my point now? There's nothing such as protecting people in order; either everyone is protected or no one is. For example since we're talking about Palestine, according to post-election polling Gaza playing a major role in costing Harris the election. You're simply not special enough to be protected before everyone else; either you scratch others' backs so they scratch yours or both you and others end up with itchy backs in a concentration camp. Genocidal warmongers are not going to protect you.

Would you vote for someone who calls out the genocide of the Palestinian people but would also destroy social services where you live that you might rely on?

First, I don't want someone who calls out the genocide; I want someone who does something about it. Second, did you miss the part where I said injustice everywhere needs to be opposed? If such a person existed, I'd pressure them to change their position (before voting for them).