Try Marvel Rivals (out on December 6th). It reminded me of OW1, but also OW2, of course.

The store is simple, though. It has archetypal builds (or whatever they are called), like “cooldown reduction item”, “life steal item”, etc. I think the hardest part will be memorizing yet another set of heroes to play decently against them.

Let’s move on.

I enjoy MOBAs a lot, but their communities tend to be so toxic… I’m playing other multiplayer games because I am tired of the toxicity (among other things).

I think that’s the ambiguity. An AFAB only space is different to a women’ (and maybe other feminine identities I’m not aware of) space. The first, AFAB, is about the sex you were born into. The second is about your gender (and here we can even create different groups, but that’s beyond the point). The ambiguity comes because each of us uses “female” differently, sometimes to mean this or that. That’s the importance of specifying what we mean, especially when creating a club or something similar.

I suggest arrows to navigate main comments (I think they also call them “parent comments” or something). As an example, Sync for Lemmy and Now for Reddit have them.

I mean, it’s our fault as leftists that it is an echo chamber. We have forgotten how to talk about polemic issues among ourselves. I bet we lemmings have big differences (in the details) but we are afraid of bans or talking to walls, so…

Are you thinking of Stalin?

I mean, the people still exist and the need for honest opinions is still there. We just need to find a new place where money isn’t such a big problem (although it will always be a problem to some degree). I really think a more stable and easy to use Lemmy could attract a large crowd.

I don’t remember the scene, but the caption and something about it makes it feel like decisiveness, maybe frustration finally made into a plan.

No, they’re not fully developed, but they distinguish actions morally speaking (even older children do) and they can choose to do better.

Similarly, people interested in philosophy (and other theoretical stuff) might take a break and think of different things like “but how’s the soap made, anyway?”.

I disagree. Generally speaking, psychologists aren’t competent either. Psychiatrists at least know about the human body, its interactions, and psychopathology in depth. Psychologists study the things you mentioned, but many fail to study the biological parts and how deep psychopathologies can go.

Therefore, I’ve encountered many psychologists who think that all problems are caused by the environment, by inner (often cognitive) processes, etc. They fail to understand severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and regularly make one of two mistakes (if not both in different contexts): downplay the severity of psychosis and mania/hypomania or think the mildest symptom is psychosis or mania/hypomania.

Also, many psychologists I’ve known and seen lean into the antipsychiatry movement. This may not be a problem when treating, say, mild to moderate depressions of a certain reactive nature. They might advise not to take medication and, indeed, medication may not be necessary for these cases. But to do the same for endogenous recurrent depressions and, again, severe mental disorders is borderline clinical negligence.

Finally and in the same vein, many psychologists do not understand how dependent on the physiological are phenomena such as behavior and beliefs. They often picture our mental experience as mostly free, perhaps influenced by many factors (e.g., psychoanalysis), yet ultimately driven by ourselves. I disagree. I disagree not only because there are many scientific observations to the contrary, but because my own experience has been ever-changing by the silliest of things, like medication for physical illnesses, food, weather conditions, etc. Anecdote incoming: >!Traits that psychologists would try to explain away, treat in talk therapy, and solidify as part of my personality were mere consequences of the physiological and went away immediately after I stopped the causes. The average psychiatrist would find this obvious, while psychologists were often surprised.!<

If I may add, both psychiatrists and psychologists face a profound ignorance about the things they study. Psychology has tried to explain them, and in this effort it has created dozens of different and incompatible schools of thought (e.g., psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.). Psychiatrists are also at a loss in the definitive hows, and I should add there’s also dense theory behind it (it did not stop with Emil Kraeplin or Karl Jaspers). If you ask me, I wouldn’t consider one more scientific than the other just because one created more paradigms/theories; if anything, remaining observant and pragmatic sounds to me more scientific (in both disciplines), but that’s a whole new conversation…

This might sound pedantic, but it isn’t, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.

Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any “package”); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).

I was wrong, so wrong. It’s painful to remember how I felt when I realized it…

But I think the premises weren’t entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.

I don’t know how to post images, but Google “Dinosaur Liberty Security” or “Dinosaur Freedom Security” and that’s what came to my mind.

SMITE isn’t a shooter, though. Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch and left an empty space. I don’t see a problem if two games (or more) try to fill it. I hope they are fun.

That said, it shouldn’t be Valve’s only focus if fans are expecting different games from them.

I thought it was him, William Whewell, in response to an almost rant from Samuel Taylor Coleridge about “natural philosophers” (today’s scientists) not deserving to be called “philosophers”.

I just googled it and found:

Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas.

[…]

There was much grumbling among those in attendance, when Whewell masterfully suggested that in “analogy with artist we form scientist.” Curiously this almost perfect linguistic accommodation of workmanship and inspiration, of the artisanal and the contemplative, of the everyday and the universal –was not readily accepted.

Yeah, that was the story I’d heard.

Another source says:

Coleridge declared that although he was a true philosopher, the term philosopher should not be applied to the association’s members. William Whewell responded by coining the word scientist on the spot. He suggested

by analogy with artist, we may form scientist.

It’s funny because nobody remembers S. T. Coleridge as a philosopher but only as a poet. I’ve read that his philosophical writings were like an eccentric and almost immature version of German idealism. The thing that haunts me is that famous F. Schelling is well read but often misunderstood, so if they both were part of the romantic movement and they were both close to idealism, it could be that they both suffer the same fate.

Anyway, I digressed. That was the story I knew. Basically, a gatekeeping poet separated philosophers and natural philosophers.

It’s even curious because there are rumours about men like Coleridge being “half-mad”, and recently there have been studies on it. It would be ridiculous (just as history tends to be) if an old mad poet had divided these branches of knowledge on a fit of bad moods.

We are already here.

I get it now. I don’t agree with your points.

you’re claiming that these killings are spontaneous and only coincidentally helps the incumbents or the party leadership positions maintain authority.

I don’t believe it benefits the party that today is dominant, not only because they are getting killed too but also because they are being accused of making Mexico violent and it is super important for them to prove that things are getting better.

This is not the same as saying that the killings are spontaneous, on the contrary, it is an unstable game of power grabbing because of very special circumstances in Mexico that allow this uncertainty of who is getting what in 2024. This in itself lets us see that there are powerful groups fighting and not a tyranny from the current government nor them only silencing opponents.

This isn’t normal. This doesn’t happen in other places of the world.

I don’t know about normal; it isn’t desirable, but perhaps it was to be expected. Why Mexico and not other countries? I think this is an oversimplification.

First, it does happen in other countries, but differently. Some have coup d’États, revolutions, extremist terrorism, etc. Of course if you compare Mexico to Germany, Germans are playing chess under the table. Compare Mexico to Arab countries, African countries, and even violent Latin American countries. Violence exists in many other places. Yet, secondly, you can only see similarities when comparing social circumstances, never mirrors. You won’t find another Mexico in its details because no other country has Mexico’s history. I repeat: it does happen in other countries, but differently. And that’s why what you said was too simple.

For this to not somehow be organized or orchestrated would be completely illogical, because then it would be occurring elsewhere as well.

Following the last part, no, this can perfectly be complex. ‘Heterogenous’ is the word that is coming to my mind.

To me, it’s more illogical to believe a single force is orchestrating this violence (which, again, is getting people from different groups killed) than to believe it is power grabbing from many sources. The first option even sounds a little conspiracy-theorish or paranoid, if I’m being frank.

It’s late so don’t mind me, but I didn’t get your point. They’re killing candidates from all factions, all parties. Perhaps different people are killing independently for different reasons. Mega corporations killing the candidates that want regulations on their use of water, deforestation, etc. Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and others are devastating the lands and I’m sure they’re profiting nicely from that and don’t want to stop. Organized crime. Corrupt politicians. It’s not simple (or clear) to me, why do you say it is?

I’ve heard of Goldfish and Vidzy.