Just want to hop in and also point out the vastly different costs of being wrong in each case.

On one hand, we have a supervisor having to take a diversity course, and an employee getting a written warning about their performance. On the other hand, a person is losing their income and health insurance. If the evidence equally supported both sides and we had to guess, the detrimental effect of incorrectly supporting one side is vastly more significant than incorrectly supporting the other.

And that assumes a hypothetical where the evidence doesn’t support either side, something I do not think is the case. I think the article supplies enough information to support Alm’s case.

:( very sad to hear that. Naughty Dog has made 3 of my favorite online games of all time (Uncharted 3, Uncharted 4, TLOU) and so I was really excited for the announcement of a new multiplayer game. I feel like historically Naughty Dog has done a good job of finding the parts of a gameplay loop that feels “sticky” and give it some grease to make it feel better in subsequent games. There were a few parts of TLOU that could have used improvements; Clans representing some really interesting and incredibly infuriating ideas in multiplayer games, for example. I expected it would still be a niche game, but sad to hear it is probably going to die in development hell after years of me getting excited for it.

sigh oh well, not much you can do about it.

You are welcome to criticize and dislike the writing of the games, but you can do so without insulting people who disagree with you. This is your reminder of the main rule of this instance to “be(e) kind”.

This game has been the bane of my existence. I love the atmosphere, story, and design of Bloodborne. I cannot get myself to enjoy the game. I want to like it so badly because everything other than the mechanics are extremely my-interests, but FUCK do I not like the gameplay.

Oh cool. I’ve been out sick all week and have been having panic attacks that my teammates hate me for it and I’m creating a burden for them by not forcing myself back to work. Love to hear management in my field validate that as a reason to be fired.

I’ve been playing a shitload of Valorant. It hits the sweet spot for me between FPS and MOBA. I hadn’t played a tactical shooter before but I’m warning up to it. I still prefer Halo-style battle arena games but this is fun.

Speaking of Halo-like games: I am still playing splitgate even though the game is dead. It’s some of the most fun I have ever had while playing a game with friends.

I have never heard of “reeee” being a record scratching sound.

“Reeeee” being a joke about autistic screech, like a lot of old shitty jokes, originated on 4chan but made its way to reddit and twitch and basically any other site where pepe the frog got traction. It eventually got mainstream enough that shows like South Park and I think Family Guy referenced it as such. Search “reeeee” on google or youtube, it’s going to be almost all references to a joke about autism.

Also, correcting someone making offensive jokes isn’t white knighting. It is a good thing that more people should do. Just because someone from the targeted group isn’t vocal in the comments doesn’t mean harm isn’t done. It isn’t the sole responsibility of the people targeted in situations to vocally defend themselves. Informing others of harm they might be doing to others is a core part of building a community.

all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves?

MLK and Malcom X were mathematicians? TIL.

Tbh not being able to understand how sentence structure works and scope of descriptors is about the level of critical thinking I expected in a response.

You are right. You are very smart and good at critical thinking. No one in religion is 1/1000th as good at critical thinking as you. Religious Philosophy and Theology are not fields of study that use critical thinking at all. Thank you for blessing me with your incredible insight. We should all tremble before your very smart and well-thought ideas. I am sorry I tried to critically think about the world around me when I should have just listened to you.

Okay so you’re going to sit here with a straight face and tell me that you honestly believe EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS PERSON EVER has no critical thinking skills?The LGBTQIA+ pastors that started a socialist christian church in Kentucky? MLK? Malcom X? Johann Bernoulli, Blaise Pascal, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, all of whom are some of the most important mathematicians in history and were religious, all couldn’t think for themselves? Immanuel Kant, famous influential philosopher, no critical thinking. Every Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindi, Buddhist, Shintoists, and every other religion in existence throughout history, not a single person alive today who believes in religion can think for themselves? Between 70-85% of the global population (depending on what source you look at) report themselves as follower of a religion. No critical thinking abilities across 75% of the global population?

Can we please move beyond this 2010 New Atheism view that every religious leader/person is stupid and unable to critically think? It is such a lazy and black-and-white view of a massive global population full of diverse people, thoughts, and beliefs.

So I have a lot of thoughts on this that I have repeatedly failed to word in a way that I am happy with, so I am going to sideline a lot of those to focus on some more high-level thoughts:

As many have noted, there would probably be significantly better discussion happening if the ideas in the post were framed in a less antagonistic way. While I don’t think the post should be removed, it has been reported multiple times as “obvious rage-bait”, and I have a hard time disagreeing with that view. It is hard to take criticisms of things you like when the tone of that criticism is condescending and antagonistic. This isn’t helped by all the “reasons” given are very subjective and vague, with no concrete examples given to give a reader any context for what you think falls in these categories. In my experience, this type of “conversation” (I hesitate to call it a “conversation” because I think the structure makes having an actual conversation nearly impossible) is really prevalent amongst men who studied STEM and Redditors. Rather than a discussion about preferences in games and strengths/weaknesses of different storytelling styles, it encourages “I’m right, you’re wrong” argumentation, which just won’t be as fruitful and serves mostly to build tension within the community. For me personally, while I do think the ideas in the post make for interesting discussions/conversations, I don’t believe it is possible when this is the initial framing. I hope we can avoid this discussion/argumentation style on beehaw.

As for a more general thoughts on the contents of the post: this feels like it could be condensed down to “I only like a very specific and limited type of storytelling and view anything outside of that as lesser and flawed.” It is also comes off as a very simplistic and “rationalist” analysis of storytelling. It is focused only on tropes and structure and ignores how those tropes might be used to emphasize a theme, or the emotional impact of those stories.