Gloomy

I don’t think anything exits on its own merit on the whole wide universe, but that is another discussion to be had.

Content here seems to rise and fall if they fit the narrative the community wants to push. I was quite active on r/collapse and it only got The doom stuff about climate change. Positive messages were filtered out. That’s just one example, but it seems to be how Lemmy works and Reddit used to work before it was invaded by bots.

I’d argue that is pushing the ego too. It’s a way to reaffirm the worldview one holds over and over. And that is, I think, a very ego driven thing, since we all strife to be right about things.

Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out.

Can’t Messanger be used without Facebook? Mine asked me if in wanted to do that before I nuked it.

Isn’t Lemmy social media, or am I overlooking something?

Easy to make misstake, but it was Power Word: Pain, not Kill.

You speak a word of power that causes waves of intense pain to assail one creature you can see within range. If the target has 100 hit points or fewer, it is subject to crippling pain. Otherwise, the spell has no effect on it. A target is also unaffected if it is immune to being charmed.

It’s telling that it needs the second sentence you wrote for me to realize you were speaking about Hitler, not Elon. I don’t say he’s gone of that far, but it wouldn’t have supposed me at all.

Come to Germany. We don’t talk to each other in public. Ever.

Smalltalk with the cashier? Hell no. It’s just "Card or Cash? " “Card.” “Receipt?” “Nope. Bye.” “Bye”. Every time.

Walk past each other on a tail. Maaaaaybe it will be a “Hello”. That’s it. Every time.

Username checks out ;-)

Thank you. Here and in your answers down below you show that you are willing to honestly think about the position the other side has. I greatly appreciate that (in general, not only in regards to this topic) for the reasons you listed above. If you realy want to get trough to another person, taking their position serious and trying to understand it is the first step, that is misses so many times for a trough a way “gotcha” moment nowadays.

Can… Can we wreak Istanbul on our way there again? Just out of tradition.

So now we are talking about game systems that need you to know the lore? I thought this is about GMs putting work into their world building and newbies not beeing able to grasp it.

If you are new you build your character with the GM and accept limits he puts in it, because you don’t know better anyway. You can always play a character that has more knowledge of the world, once you have a bit of a feeling for what it’s like. I have never had the problem of a new player not accepting some limitations to the characters or backstorys made avaible to them.

Sure, and in that case a different approach might be sensible. But honestly, I don’t see how a newbie would want to play a complex character right from the get go. If they do, I’d propaly recommend a more Newby friendly world / round. I still stand by my point: A complex world doesn’t by default speak against new players.

That’s not what I’m saying.

Im saying that a world should be explorable from within, by interacting with it. You don’t learn about urban fantasy, historical fiction, call of cthullu by downloading the knowledge about it before you are born. You learned about them while you engaged with the world.

A newbie can be like a child, exploring a world that is new to them (and it is easy to have a role that comes up with a reason for this: Amnesia, Migrant from far away county, lived a very privileged live in a golden cage that limited expose to the outside, etc.).

Sure, there might be some explaining, as you brought up before, but that can happen from within the game, in character, giving the new player a chance go engage with a world that is as foraign to them as to the character they are playing. They should be able to learn about a complicated world as they go.

Maybe a bit of a hot take, but if your world needs to be explained in great detail and can’t be experienced with minimal background information, the world building might not be that great.

Yes, but that is because there is a power imbalance at play here. It makes sence to avoid such situations to prevent sexual violence in institutions.

You can normalise beeing naked without shame beeing involved and keep children safe in a situation that could be potentialy abused. In my opinion that’s not mutually exclusive.

Ironically not making parts of our body a taboo best not even to talk about is what helps children speak out if they have been molestered. Same with knowing what is appropriate and what not. Sex-Ed is just so important to prevent sexual violence against children. Which is, just to make the clear, still not their responsibility. It’s just something that helps a lot, you still need systems of protection in institutions.

/rant I guess.

They don’t call it a Quarter Pounder with Cheese?

And it is science denial to have a scientific opinion that is interpreting facts differently then the consensus?

Also, from my first source:

“The IPCC supports the overwhelming scientific consensus about human impact on climate change, so we would expect the reports’ vocabulary to be dominated by greater certainty on the state of climate science – but this is not the case.”

The IPCC assigns a level of certainty to climate findings using five categories of confidence and ten categories of probability. The team found the categories of intermediate certainty predominated, with those of highest certainty barely reaching 8% of the climate findings evaluated.

“The accumulation of uncertainty across all elements of the climate-change complexity means that the IPCC tends to be conservative,” says co-author Professor Corey Bradshaw, Matthew Flinders Fellow in Global Ecology at Flinders University. “The certainty is in reality much higher than even the IPCC implies, and the threats are much worse.”

What? You literaly poster an opinion peace. By a climate scientist, yes, but so is the response I posted.

Plus, I quoted a study in reply to the comments about the IPCC.

How is that climate science denial?

A new study has revealed that the language used by the global climate change watchdog, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is overly conservative - and therefore the threats are much greater than the Panel’s reports suggest.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320102010.htm

As a climate scientist, it is my duty to tell you about what is happening to our world, whether it engenders fear or not.

A failure to do this will mean that the public is left ignorant of the true extent of the climate emergency, which in turn can only hinder engagement and action.

This is already becoming a problem, with many commentators on the right of the political spectrum, along with some climate scientists, denigrating as “doomers” anyone flagging the worst outcomes of global heating.

Such climate “appeasement” is increasingly taking the place of denial and could be an even greater driver of inertia than fear, as it plays down the enormity of the problem — and as an inevitable consequence, the urgency of action.

Bill McGuire

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/07/opinions/climate-scientist-scare-doom-anxiety-mcguire/index.html

Lol, I feel ya :-)