Sentrovasi

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.

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.

Singapore. And Singapore.

I think you’re free to believe what makes you happy :)

But making assumptions can be dangerous in science, and misconceptions, especially in the information age, can be very hard to disabuse. I’m happy for shows to not jump to conclusions just so twenty years later we’re not stuck with myths that may actually be harmful to how we understand the animals we all love.

There’s a difference between conservatism and regressivism, and as you yourself keep saying, the Republicans you see on the internet (your source, apparently) are not just being conservative.

Which again, begs the question of why you think you’re qualified to claim that this is some “truth”.

And again, I’m completely sympathetic to the idea that uncritical hatred and demonising of “the other side” leads to uncritical and one-sided ideas of the “truth”.

What I think you’re missing is the nuance that someone can consider both sides and still consider that one side is indefensible. The disqualification of the modern Republican from being “good people” does not mean that someone has not carefully thought through their stand.

Now about how you react to bad people: you can give them a chance to be good - the benefit of the doubt that they may not actually be standing for everything that being a modern Republican involves. But like I said previously, it might be a good time for those people to re-evaluate whether they actually are Republicans (an archaic term that has no real meaning today beyond a party affiliation) or feel like maybe it’s time to recognise something has gone deeply wrong.

If this God exists outside time, it would make sense since we may be unable to perceive these perturbations in time - it will just always have been that way.

Then that leads to the even bigger question of how you know that not all Republicans - at least, its uniquely American construction - are bad?

(If you mean to say that in your country, republican is a beautiful-smelling flower, then the answer to that is that in common internet discourse, it has come to mean the American GOP, and people who may be taking the hyperbolic stance that all Republicans are bad are talking specifically about those Republicans. Just FYI.)

And don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge supporter of the idea that increased polarisation and demonisation of the other side is only going to push people towards extreme positions and alienate those who only support a small number out of the basket of things that are in that box: things that may be necessary for their continued survival or way of life.

Nonetheless, given what the Republican party has begun to stand for more and more, with its wilful ignorance and inexplicable support for Trump, it is becoming increasingly indefensible to believe that people who will vote for that particular team, regardless of the consequences, are not basically complicit in evil.

I personally don’t think all Republicans are bad. But even the good ones have had years to consider if maybe they were the baddies. And if they recognise that there are deplorables among them, then maybe they shouldn’t take criticism towards the loudest of them so personally either. And consider moving away from the Republican brand.

Wait, if you’re a Republican and you’re admitting that Republican politicians don’t have critical thinking ability, then why are you still voting for having them run a country and affecting the livelihoods of millions (billions) of people?

If the only Republican policies you’re supporting are benign ones (as a non-American, I don’t know which those are), are they worth all the ones that oppress and take away the rights of others?

And if you’re a Republican but not a fan or voter of the Republican party as it stands, then maybe you need to reconsider what your definition of a Republican is, because Republicans themselves today are defining themselves in ever-bolder terms.

I think the older generation got used to the stereotype that if people were posting with emojis, they would naturally be making more immature posts (being younger). There are a lot more people from the older generation on the Fediverse.

For an example of this generational gap: you mention that “On Reddit people use emojis a lot” - that genuinely is not the experience on Reddit I had: when I still used Reddit frequently, emojis were treated with the same level of disdain (which both explains and is explained by the condescension around the Emoji Movie).

So you’re signalling that you’re from a certain generation and looking to appeal to people who are similarly from that generation of people who like to use emojis to express themselves. That’s going to attract some people and also going to rub others the wrong way. And that’s fine! Keep using your emojis. You just might want to remember that a lot of the people who hated new Reddit and a lot of the people who left Reddit for Lemmy the first time are/were going to be old-timers (by internet standards), so you might find fewer like-minded people here.

As a last note, your saying you “miss emojis” makes me feel extra old (and I don’t think I’m old at all!): it suggests that the time of emojis has not only eclipsed the internet culture I’m familiar with but has died out also. That’s two eras. It’s fortunate that at this current point in time, it seems like digital cultural eras can pass in weeks.

To be fair if the goal is understanding why, then even things like goods not being substitutable are useful for understanding. The OP wanted to know why, not know how to predict them accurately. The original suggestion to learn economics would teach them that.

I (charitably) think the fact is that they may also have misunderstood Cyberpunk to be more about hacking than it actually is, and are using “spy” despite a lot of CP2077 not being necessarily about remote hacking cameras at all.

They were quoting responses the OP has made to other replies in this post.

Fucks Pez!

Feels like you’re conflating all the Israel-Hamas issues together. None of that is relevant to what I said (maybe the first sentence is?) and I agree with most of it.

Sorry to be replying so late, (original poster of the post that generated all these comments here) but I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. You’re right that entire families disappearing probably will get more people to sympathise. That was my original point. Hamas wants innocent Palestinians dead just as much as Israel does. Whether they’ll fudge numbers to move that needle up or not is not really important at that point: some people just feel like in the face of that political reality, is it really so unlikely that they’ll do so?

The sad thing to me is that I don’t think either government genuinely cares about the 195 deaths except as political leverage on Hamas’s side and 195 fewer problems in Netanyahu’s way.

Unsounded by Ashley Cope is one I love that hasn’t been mentioned yet.

They said they spent another hour after launching, though - not sure you can launch without having interacted with the Nomai statue.