What discussion you know you are on the wrong side of?

I’ll answer your question!
Pretty sure I’m on the wrong side of vegetarianism. I love animals, I think they’re worthy of love and consideration from us. I know becoming a vegetarian or vegan would reduce harm to animals, and I’m pretty sure it’s the morally correct thing to do. It’s also hard, it’s alienating, and I know every time I’ve attempted it in the past it’s triggered disordered eating.
My current stance is that society should embrace vegetarianism. If the government were to make a law granting animals status that protected them from being killed for food, I’d support that as a moral good. However, I’m not willing to be fully vegetarian in a carnivorous society, there are too many drawbacks. I know this is hypocritical and kinda intellectually pathetic of me but there it is :(
- My mother does wildlife rescues, birds are mostly, then goes home and cooks a roast chicken.
  She knows it's hypocritical. Cognitive dissonance is weird.
  Also, it's not so alienating. I attend dinners with my family, and I'll eat roast vegies, and bring a side-dish for myself. Over time a few of my friends became vegan (I didn't convince them to) and it's exciting to share recipes.
  If nothing else, reduce your meat intake over time.
  As with most changes people make, the more drastic, the more unlikely it is to stick.
  When I became vegan I was a slut for KFC burgers, and I "failed" a few times, but I just kept reminding myself it's not good for anyone, and mustered up the will power to drive past, and eat at home instead.
  
  I’ve definitely reduced my intake, I just can’t apply the principle in a strict way. And the “alienating“ comment is just my own experience, I’m glad you didn’t have that issue! This isn’t intended to dissuade anyone from trying to be vegetarian, like I said I think I’m on the wrong side of this. It just personally has been difficult to fully align my moral principles and my actions on this matter.
- It really depends on where you live. Being in BC we have so many Vegan and Vegetarian places that finding food outside of the home is easy. Visiting Calgary AB though, good luck.
  
  Calgarian here. Can confirm.
- Good example. I also feel like vegetarianism is probably correct, but I still haven't gone that way.
- I'm in the same boat. My girlfriend is pescatarian, mostly because she thinks animals are too cute to eat. She loves pigs and thinks they are adorable.
  I agree that vegetarianism is more sustainable and humane, but I also really like carnitas burritos. I eat way more seafood now and, though she says she doesn't care, I try to avoid "farm animal" meat when we go out.
  I've definitely reduced my meat consumption and I will probably continue to do so, but I'm not ready to cut it out yet. I had prime rib for Thanksgiving and it was amazing. Apologies and thanks to the cow.
- Your position is about a thousand times better than the denial-ism of most meat-eaters. "Eating meat is morally dubious, but I am making this bad trade off" is better than the usual "Shut up meat is tasty and like they don't feel pain and if they did it's only for a moment and it's longer they deserve it for being lower on the food chain. And the environmental impacts are just made up but even if they were real they're not a big deal, and if they were then it's not like it'll affect me, and if it did well fuck you."
  That is, some people who eat meat refuse to acknowledge that there's any drawbacks or moral pitfalls. I guess that's too hard on the self image. Cowards, really.
  I try to minimize how much meat I eat. It's a baby step. It's hard when like work does an outing and there's no vegetarian options. I don't want to make a big stink about it every time. But I'm not going to pretend that eating meat is morally the high ground or good for the environment.
  Sometimes people are like "Well I just enjoy a hamburger" as if that's any sort of justification. Maybe I just enjoy punching cowards in the throat, but we can't always do what we want, now can we.
- I'm all in on lab grown protein
- I definitely commiserate with this. This is almost certainly the biggest moral quandary in my life. I think in my lifetime there will be a tipping point where vegetarianism will be a large enough minority to make it personally viable for me, but for the moment I reduce consumption where I can. Breakfast sausage will be the hardest thing to give up for me - but I continuously try meat alternatives in hopes of finding something I like.

Adding an easy or "story" mode to a game doesn't inherently make it worse. You can still play it with difficulty cranked up to "Dark Souls" or whatever. The fact that there is a separate mode that others can use does not affect you; you need not use it yourself.
"Story mode" is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else. Instead of cheapening the game, it actually expands its influence on the world.
All that being said, no, no game is strictly obligated to be accessible, but why cheapen your art by not making it so?
- I mean, if you want your story to reach broad audiences, story mode is good. If you have an artistic vision and can only see your story learned as such, do that. Not supplying story mode is like not supplying condiments at a restaurant. Limiting your client base.
- “Story mode” is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else.
  This is very insightful.
- I have an experience relating to game difficulty and accessibility that you would probably appreciate.
  I was playing Rimworld for the first time, and because I was aware of how huge disasters that wipe out most of your work (that you can sometimes build back from) is a part of the game, I felt bad about playing the game on the mode that allows you to load earlier saves; I would find losing progress in this way more stressful than fun, so I wanted the ability to reverse poor fortune or choices, even if it felt like I was "dishonouring the intended experience".
  However, a friend (who was the reason I had bought Rimworld in the first place, and who enjoyed the chaos of no-save mode) pointed out that whilst the no-save mode may be presented as the default, the mode with saves enabled is presented as a perfectly valid way to enjoy the game. This made me feel immensely better about it, and I was able to dispel the silly guilt I was feeling. It highlighted to me the power of how we label difficulty settings and other accessibility settings.
  Games are a funny medium.
- I don't particularly find the acessibility argument that compelling. Sure, we must make experiences as acessible as possible, but at a certain point the experience gets degraded by it. You can't make a blind person see a painting, and if you did, it wouldn't be a painting.
  
  I think it's sort of a matter of perspective. You may feel like having an easier mode degrades the experience, but for others it makes the game enjoyable/playable to them.
  Do you have the same perspective on people that like the sandbox style of the sims games and so would use cheat codes for infinite money? It certainly alters the experience in a way that is different from the intentions of the devs, and to you may degrade the experience of the game, but for other people it elevates the game, and makes it more interesting or fun for them.
  A similar argument could be made about the modding scene. Although it's community driven rather than done by the actual devs of the games, allowing people to mod the game to customize their experience with quality of life mods, or mods that make the game easier/harder allows people to tweak the game more to their tastes and what they're looking for in a game.
  You might say that if a game isn't appealing to someone they should just play another game. But if the game is very close to the experience they are looking for, but there are a few hangups that are a deal breaker for them, why force them to look for the perfect unicorn game instead of acknowledging that allowing players to cater the game to their own tastes is better. Having an easy mode does nothing to harm you, or your experience of the game, you can still play at your desired difficulty. And it only opens the game up for other people to enjoy.
  You can't make a blind person see a painting. But you can put a braille placard in front of it with a description of the painting. Or have audio tours that describe the paintings. And to you, that may degrade the art, but for someone who otherwise wouldn't be able to experience it at all, it allows them to at least share somewhat in the experience that everyone else in the exhibit is having.
  
  You can also offer an audible description of the painting, and, just so the analogy makes sense, you can warn the audience that hearing the explaination isn't the experience the author intended to craft.
  CrossCode did that...
  
  The point I'm making is that you need not alter the painting. Adding an option to a game does not alter it for those that do not select it.
  You're arguing for letting perfect be the enemy of good. The fact that a blind person can't perceive the visual aspect of an experience doesn't mean that they should be excluded entirely.
  
  How does the existence of an option you never use degrade your experience?
  
  It would be pretty crappy to never give a description of a painting to a blind person though. Like could you imagine if we never described the Mona Lisa to a blind person and they just to guess what it was a picture of.
  
  Using this logic, you would have to accept that people that are very good at a given game from the start have a fundamentally different experience to people that are very bad at a given game. And people that are average have another experience again.
  So who's having the "true" experience? Is the good player having a degraded experience because they feel like they're playing on easy mode? Is the bad player having a degraded experience because they give up half way in? Is the average player having the "intended" experience of each part of the game feeling earned and hard won?
  The reality is it's impossible to give the "intended" experience to everyone regardless. And if the average player experience is the intended experience, having difficulty settings will actually let the other players experience that, not take away from it. If the very good player and the very bad player can fine tune it so their relative experiences are the same as the average player, hard but not impossible, haven't you actually given the intended experience to more people rather than degrade it?
  
  I think one of the really neat things about games as a medium is that "the experience" is inherently a super malleable concept. Gaming blows my mind when I think about how adaptive you need to be to run a tabletop roleplaying game, like Dungeons and Dragons — no matter how elaborate your plans are, players will always find a way to throw a spanner in the works. Video games have the same unpredictability of how players engage with the world you've made, but a much smaller ability to respond and adapt to ensure that they're getting the correct "intended experience".
  In some respects, I agree with you, because when I play games, I care a lot about the intended experience. However, the reality is that I bring too much of myself to any game that I play to be able to think of my experience in that way, and I think that's probably one of my favourite aspects of games as a medium — a dialogue between gamer and game developers. Especially because sometimes, the intended experience of a game isn't well executed; there are plenty of times I have gotten lost or confused in games because the game didn't sufficiently communicate to me (or other players with similar experiences) what it expected us to do. Part of the role of the game designer/developers role is to be guide the players so they get something resembling the intended experience.
  Honestly, part of why I am on the pro-accessibility side of this issue is because I'm a bit of a snob — I think that being able to adapt a message or experience to a diverse audience shows a singularity of vision that's more powerful than experiences that target a much smaller audience.
  For example, let's say that the subjective difficulty level of a game (the "experience") equals the "objective difficulty level" of a game (the difficulty setting) minus the player's skill level. For the sake of this example, let's imagine that 10 arbitrary units is the correct level of the subjective difficulty level, and above/below that, the experience is degraded; also, let's say that player skill ranges from 1-10, with most people clustering in the 4-6 range. In that world, if a game could only have one difficulty mode, 15 ish would probably be best, because 15 (objective difficulty) - 5 (average player skill level) = 10 (intended subjective difficulty level). I don't begrudge game Devs for targeting limited audiences if that's what they feel capable of, but I do massively respect the craftsmanship of being able to build a game that can serve a subjective 10 to a wide range of people, by having a range of difficulty settings.
  
  Hi! I’ve had two strokes, and my hands don’t work as well as they should! Should I be excluded from the hobby, so you don’t have to look at an extra menu option?
  What you’ve got here reeks of elitism.
  Disability comes for everyone. Sometimes death gets there first. You aren’t unique.

OP, you've made the classic mistake of putting your opinion in the post instead of as a comment, now everyone is replying to your opinion in top level comments instead of your question.
- This is the best practice, especially for AskLemmy but it also applies to news and other media threads. It's best to put your personal thoughts and opinions in a top-level reply, while keeping the post body to clarifications or summary of the posted question or media.

I am always on the right side of any discussion. Otherwise I wouldn't be on that side.
- A lot of people seem to feel this way. Don’t let it become a tautology, however. It’s your opinion because you think it’s correct, NOT it’s correct because it’s your opinion. For example, plenty of folks justify homophobia because gay people make them feel icky and never examine whether or not their intuition is actually correct. You still have a responsibility to examine your conclusions on a topic and readjust as necessary!
  
  It’s your opinion because you think it’s correct, NOT it’s correct because it’s your opinion.
  Exactly this.
- Yep. I don't argue for things I don't believe are the side I should be on. Sometimes I make tongue-in-cheek arguments (think A Modest Proposal) but that's not in a discussion. I don't get into arguments as a sport or to make people angry, so why ever be on a side I think is 'wrong'?
- I have been bashed for saying sth similar in response to "you think your opinions are better than other people's opinions". Duh, yeah? Otherwise I would hold the other opinion.
- I'm glad you are like that, but dometimes people want to be convinced of the opposite side but haven't been able to, yet.
- Same! I have 100% certainty in any topic that I happen to be on, and if i'm not 100% certain then I immediately excuse myself and hold my hands to ears screaming "lalala I have no opinion!" because it would be ignorant of me to even debate a topic I am not a complete expert on, said no one ever.
  Come on. Discussions aren't binary. There are bits of that side you agree with, and bits of the other side you agree with and that weird eclectic mix puts you on uncertain spectrum that mostly leans to one side but oscillates in the middle at times, and that's completely okay because it's how you update your priors by being corrected by others whilst understanding that a lot of well informed stances are balancing on a few struts

Veganism. I don't have any problems with most vegans. Most go through a phase of trying to convert you, but the ones I know and associate with have come out the other side. We all know that these positions would make the world a better place. I don't think I have the will to do it. Might be wrong though.
- What about not trying to annoy vegans?
- As a Vegan, I can honestly say some Vegans are the worst. LOL. And I have found through the online rave review of products that Vegans are liars too. :)
  When my wife brings a product home that had great reviews by Vegans, I'm like ah crap, this is going to be shite.
  
  My old man yelling at cloud rant :
  i hate vegan products that try to position themselves as the vegan replacement to a non vegan product. They have their own qualities, and it hurts the product that it is compared to the meat alternative. If someone wants to eat chicken, no amount of marketing and spices will make it taste like chicken and will always be inferior to their meat counterparts for the meat eater.
  Vegan recipes on internet are 95% terrible. They try to put 100 flavors in one meal. Take whatever recipe your normally eat with meat and simply replace the protein for a vegan protein of your choice (pvt, tofu, bean curds, etc). Grill your tofu to your heart content, make that bean curd extra delicious by dunking it in soy sauce and eat with vegetables and rice or make a simple rice and bean with a side of fresh avocado.
  There are so many good vegan products with fucking terrible marketing. Meat eaters will not change their habits because you green wash your marketing. Go balls to the wall with that shit.

That’s not how I operate. If I know I’m on the wrong side, I change sides.

Asking (paraphrasing) "hey what are you wrong about but unwilling to admit?" and then sticking a (metaphorical) "I think Nickleback is a pretty good band" opinion in the middle of it feels like a harder challenge than the designers of AskLemmy were intending
- I thought about it a bit when making this post and I felt like not giving an example would make people come with crazy political opinions which would probably be a bad time. Maybe it still wasn't the best approach, admittedly.
  
  Maybe giving the example in a separate top-level comment would have worked better. Interesting discussion either way, though.
- That is why askreddit banned "I'll start", half the comments were replies to the OP instead of sharing their own experiences.
- Said like someone who never wanted to be a rock star
- I mean, nickelback is a pretty good band.
  Maybe even the best metal band ever
  
  Iron Maiden? Goldfinger? Led Zeppelin? So many better metal bands, come on!!

Pronouns. I get that they matter a lot to some people, and of course it's super annoying (if not worse) to be referred to in the wrong way, but I find it unreasonable to demand being referred to something outside of the gender binary, simply because that's the way language works.
I am aware that English has used "they" for a person of unknown gender for ages, but for one, I don't think it's something that you should demand people call you when they actually know your gender, but also I really hate that this is making its way into other languages like my own, that has never had this convention. Inventing entirely new pronouns is just ridiculous, I have a hard enough time to remember your name.
I am also aware that language evolves, but this is not evolution, it's forced, and if one group of people can try to force a change they prefer, I'm as much in my right to resist it if I don't like it.
People are super passionate about this though and in fifty years I'm sure I'll be seen as a fossil for not getting with the times now - in fact I'm sure certain people see me like this now.
- Using someone's preferred pronouns is a sign of mutual respect, your refusal to do so is a sign of disrespect to those around you. It's really that simple, bud.
  Do you call people Johnny when they tell you their name is John? It's literally the same thing, they've explained how they'd like to be addressed, and deviating from that uninvited is just rude.
  I get that they matter a lot to some people, and of course it's super annoying (if not worse) to be referred to in the wrong way
  It's dehumanizing and disrespectful, it's not annoying. I've had family members refuse to use an individual's pronouns, but in a heartbeat correct themselves for referring to a pet by the wrong pronoun. I've had people go out of their way to call me "man, guy, dude, bruh" when I'm fem presenting, and I'm the only woman they're speaking to that way while I get the "I talk like that with everyone, bruh," excuse.
  and if one group of people can try to force a change they prefer, I'm as much in my right to resist it if I don't like it.
  Correct, but then you don't get to complain, like you are, that people get upset with you about it. You're not free from the consequences of those around you simply because you have the right to feel differently on something like basic human respect for your fellow people.
  I don't get to complain that no one wants to have dinner with me just because they don't like me taking food off their plates, even though I don't agree with that societal norm.
  
  There's a guy on here with great opinions and I like to hear him talk, but he refers to himself in the third person all the time and it makes it hard for me to take him seriously. It can be a real drag on the conversation to suddenly be conscious of the pronoun of an individual, when you just want to speak to them like an equal.
  
  Is "dude" actually still considered gendered? I literally call everyone dude
  
  We're still in the growing pains version of it, though, where there are far too many people taking advantage of a legitimate position just for the attention. This isn't unique to the gender conversation, but it definitely suffers from it.
  Another issue is that there is a component of needing to be vocal and firm or no one will take you seriously, but it's a fine line between that and being obnoxious and over-asking....reminding someone who wants to be considerate is good, being offended at someone intentionally mis-labeling may be necessary, but being offended by honest mistakes or berating someone for not realizing zhe or zher or some newly defined label was a thing definitely hurts the cause.
- Language evolves because people force it to. It's not a natural organism independent from our choices. We choose taboos, we choose meaning, we choose pronunciation, we choose loanwords. It's all evolution. The idea that it's "forced" is ludicrous because no one can take words from you nor force you to use them. Your words are your own and no one is capable of stopping you from speaking them. But, if you choose not to respect the wishes of others, you will suffer consequences.
  The reason some languages have a gender binary is often because that society forced a gender binary on people to control them. There are plenty of non-Euro languages that have no gender binary built in. Language is an active participant in social oppression and changing language is an active countermeasure to that oppression and indeed a tool in shaping future society.
  Inventing entirely new pronouns is no more ridiculous than inventing yet another television show character or yet another tiktok dance craze or yet another romance novel or yet another $15/month subscription service that does the same things other service do or writing yet another magazine column.
  We put effort where we care. That's how we work. Where you put your effort shows you what you care about.
  
  Based
  
  Language evolves because people force it to.
  Sometimes, yes, often, no. New slang is naturally picked up and often makes it into the common vernacular, not because people are forcing other people to use it, but because people voluntarily start using. The same goes for loan words. The enter the language, and sometimes get mutated over time in that particular language. When "tablet" became popular someone tried to pick a Danish word for it, but it didn't stick. Same goes for many other computer-related words, which ended up just being the English word.
  But, if you choose not to respect the wishes of others, you will suffer consequences.
  This is the aggressive attitude that immediately makes me reluctant to adhere to any special pronouns people may choose. I don't know if you meant this as a lightly veiled threat, but people can become very aggressive if you "misgender" people.
  The reason some languages have a gender binary is often because that society forced a gender binary on people to control them.
  I haven't heard this before, do you have some reading material I can explore?
  Inventing entirely new pronouns is no more ridiculous than inventing yet another television show character or yet another tiktok dance craze or yet another romance novel or yet another $15/month subscription service that does the same things other service do or writing yet another magazine column.
  I would tentatively agree, if not for the fact that "the consequences" you mentioned above for ignoring any of these things are that I don't have to suffer them. The consequences for misgendering Elliot Page is ostracization, even if he isn't in the conversation or likely to ever hear about any conversation I will ever have about him.
  Where you put your effort shows you what you care about.
  That is true. And I really don't care that much about trans people. I want them to live a life without oppression with the same freedoms I have, but aside from that I care as much about them as do about the guy who lives in the apartment down the street, whom I've never met. And to that end, I think there are things that are reasonable to request from others in society, and I think there are things that are not. And changing the language for them I don't find reasonable, just like I would ask anyone to change the language for me, and shame them if they didn't. In the same vein, if people are so horrified about trans people using the wrong bathroom, just stop gendering them. To me, the only reason why we gender them anyway is because men take their bits out in front of everyone, so if we remove that part, they are virtually identical.
- I know a few trans or nonbinary folks. They either go by he, she, or they. I have yet to meet someone who doesn't. Then again I live in a weird progressive rural community.
  But if someone asks me to refer to them a particular way, sure what not? It means more to them than it means to me.
  
  But if someone asks me to refer to them a particular way, sure what not? It means more to them than it means to me.
  And it costs you nothing. :)
- Just use 他
  He = 他
  She = 他
  Chinese Language Supremacy!
  (Disclaimer: I have Chinese Ancestry)
  
  I know, right? The pronoun for third-person female did not exist historically. When western culture hit China 100 years ago, they swap out the part where it means 'human' to make a new word.
  Now when someone wants to refer to one in a gender-neutral way, they naturally write out the phonetic 'ta', as if the gender-neutral word is for male only.🤦
  Same goes for second-person pronoun in Taiwan.
  Stop these bullshits! The Chinese language does not need to address the gender! Figure that out in context! If you are writing and don't want to confuse your reader, just use the name!
- Yeah I support trans rights. If you are consistent I'll use your preferred pronouns. I don't care what bathroom people use. Health care is between you and your doctor. I only care about what genitals you have if we are going to be doing things with each others genitals.
  That said so many trans people are complete assholes about it. I'm on your side but fuck so many of you are annoying jerks.
  I remember when gays started coming out of the closet and they handled it better. Polite but firm about being treated fairly. The trans community is making more foes then friends the way they are acting.
  
  This might be specific to your region? Most trans people I know are grateful if you even make an effort. Even if you get it wrong sometimes.
  
  They aren't referred to as "preferred pronouns". That concept doesn't exist. They are just pronouns. The pronouns for this person are x, y, and z. There's no preference, just a declaration.
  
  The entire second half of your comment is both prejudiced and incorrect. You are generalizing an entire marginalized group by the actions of a few people you have interacted with. I have many trans friends irl, interact in communities with people across the gender spectrum online, and am engaged to a trans woman. I have never experienced someone being rude when they weren't treated rudely first. Additionally, trans people and "gays" are different categories entirely. You do not sound like the ally you claim to be.
- Zzzz

There isn’t really a “right” side to that one. If developers want to disappoint some potential customers and leave money on the table by not creating an easy mode, that’s their prerogative.
- Maybe? I feel like the developers have the prerogative to decide to include it or not, but with the way the discourse has gone it certainly feels like I'm in the wrong here.
  
  Point 1: If adding an easy mode legitimately degrades the “hard core” game, that’s one thing. But unless you were on the development team, how would you know if it had?
  Point 2: I don’t think it’s wrong, but I do think it’s… let’s say unskillful in the Buddhist sense. Not immoral so much as clumsy.
  People who self-identify as gamers and tie their sense of pride/self-worth to their gaming prowess are cringe. It’s cringey to not want there to be easy modes when nobody’s forcing you to play them.

You know you don't have to play the easy mode right? You can just change the mode in the settings. Most games default to the standard version anyway.
- Yes, but by that same argument if the experience doesn't work for you as it was intended, perhaps the game isnt for you.
  Not that arguing this point is the question here anyway.
  
  Why wouldn't the developer want as many people as possible to buy the game though?
  
  But the developers put a story/easy mode in the game. That seems intentional to me. Maybe those games just aren't for you if the mere option of difficulty settings bothers you so much.

I think TTRPGs should be unbalanced. Balance is a construct of games, and the fictional worlds the players will interact with are less immersive when everything is predictably tuned and equal. I think the fiction of a rogue being about as good as a fighter at combat is stupid. I think rust monsters and undead creatures that hurt your stats are way better than dire boars and skeletons who just shoot you with bows. I think that when rocks fall, things should die. These all contribute to the fantasy world seeming more dangerous, more 'real', like a spectral hand isn't shielding you from the worst the world has to offer.
I also recognize this is my dark fantasy bias yapping away
- You might be interested in GNS theory. TTRPGS try to do three things at once, be a Game, tell a Narrative, and Simulate a world. Different games will prioritize different aspects, some people want a fair challenge where they build a character according to the rules laid out to face a challenge, other people want everything to serve the story, even if it means fudging mechanics or breaking with realism, and then some people just want the simulation to be as realistic as possible.
  Like many things with TTRPGs, it's table dependent and emphasizing any of those elements over the others is totally valid as long as everyone's having fun.
- I'm with you. If a world isn't dangerous there's no reason to engage with it critically imho. If you want to grind out tactical combat or explore a power fantasy video games or board games do a better job, what they can't do is appropriately punish or reward you for being clever. Or handle unexpected interactions.
  But I'm a minority. I prefer disreputable thieves slinking through an ancient dungeon spinning lies, setting traps, and brokering deals to "I use ability-5, roll my 2 dice, apply bonus modifiers, and kill the challenge appropriate goblin".

That human rights really matter in the coming upheaval. The doomsday glacier is probably insurmountable for civ to overcome and that level of change in sea level within a decade to century and a half is going to change everything. Most of the worlds cities are not viable. From what I have seen, the long estimates are all biased and unreliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yEj9JVRhjA
On the bright side, speculative long term land investments might yield a large sum of money. Shallow keel ferry and airboat operators stand to make a fortune.
- Well, this thread was entertaining until I read this comment
  Not mad though, this is what people should be talking about
  
  Sorry depression is rather strong ATM. Basic needs not getting met hurts.
- I'm not sure how the impending climatic doomsday is going to make human rights unimportant?
  
  It is an abstraction, an anecdote really. When ordinary people are collectively in dire straights, there is little time or voice for those on the edges that become collateral damage. It is like the military when an army is being pursued in the field by another superior force–the wounded and baggage train support that are unable to fight are left behind. The ethics of the primary force are only circumstantially applicable. No one cares about the disabled or outliers when the attorneys judge and jurists are in crisis mode. While those examples are poor in their applicable timelines and the medium scale big picture. If one abstracts another few layers higher, at the decades to more centuries and even lifespans of civilizations perspective views, the overall stresses and strain on a civilization alter the landscape of the philosophical and morality. Civil rights struggles had little meaning or traction during a world war. Martial law is a mechanism that extinguishes all civil rights in a single mechanism.
  I'm not taking sides to making excuses for the behavior of others. It is just my intuition and curiosity allowed to roam freely in the good and the bad without distinction in an attempt to think without bias.
  When someone tells me of an unprecedented population displacing event, I see the refugee crisis and disproportionate effects on the poor and disadvantaged. The larger the scope of the poor people problem the larger will be the numbers of people on the edges that fall through the cracks. The experience is empirical from someone that has fallen through the cracks.
  
  If we're 3 meals away from chaos, or 9 meals away from anarchy, human rights won't be unimportant, but would you place them above your own survival or feeding your children?
  It's the subtext for so many doomsday/zombie movies. When it really comes to the crunch, what wouldn't you do ?
  
  I think the logic is essentially right wingers keep winning elections. Their supporters tend to argue first and foremost it's a win against "woke" while the money/interests behind it tend to be "let's burn this planet down and get ALL the oil." If the Left conceded on say trans issues or whatever, maybe we'd win, whixh would undoubtedly benefit the billions who may die because of climate change issues.
  (Unsure if this would work or if it'd just split the left etc myself but I think that's the logic.)
  An analogy a friend made while making this argument was that the Civil War was essential for Black emancipation etc and we can all agree it was a good thing. BUT, especially in those days, if abolitionists had also demanded trans recognition or whatever, maybe fewer states would've joined the Union or maybe the movement would've never gotten off the ground and there's a possible future wherein Black people might still be slaves because, even with the best intentions, we didn't pick our battles.
  It's a utilitarian answer to a Sophie's choice.

I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode.
That's a valid stance. It's ok to make art which is not intended for everyone, or even the majority.
However, if you're charging people money for it and they are surprised by the difficulty and can't enjoy it as a result, I think that could be a potential ethical issue. But if you make it clear it's a difficult, challenging game, then I see no problem.
- Good point on the ethics issue. Youngsters these days don't know what hard games really are. Games used to be diabolically hard, design holdovers from when quarter-munching games moved to home consoles and every game you paid full price for was essentially a gamble on whether or not it was going to be good or even playable, but finishable was almost not a consideration back then because it was pretty rare to actually ckear a game from start to end.
  These days to think it's important and walk a line between challenging and entertaining not just for the sake of capturing a larger market share of players, but also to avoid bad publicity from having a game be too difficult to o complete.

Imo, games shouldn't have an easy or a hard mode. They should progress from easy to hard. Think super mario world.
- I generally agree, but I will say, it's damn hard to get back into games like this after time passes.
  The most extreme example would be Super Mario Maker, where some custom levels need game knowledge from a wide array of the various games, so if you don't know that in SM2 you can pickup snowballs, you might get stuck for a while.
  A normal example would be like Vanquish, where if you take a break near the end of the game the sheer level of technical necessity the game requires can make it very difficult to get back into it.
  But those are extreme examples. Another example would be something like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros., where everyone has their sort of muscle memory with these games. I played Melee competitively and I came back to the game and it was like riding a bike, or a Souls game, while hard, is just one boss at a time and the game itself doesn't have too much technical growth.

The right way to comment on this post is not to answer OPs question, but rather offer your take on their take.
I did all the things at once!

Opinions change, but sometimes the discussion doesn’t come up a second time. There are more than a few positions I’ve taken that I’ve since changed my mind about, one of which is certifications. While not necessarily a requirement in IT, having one would be immensely helpful right now, and so would having any kind of degree. Not only would it assist with a job search, but I’ve also been looking into moving to another country, and these things are almost always listed as something they look for during approval.
I’ve also been on the wrong side of whether or not to change career paths.
I’m trying to get back into gaming, and one of the things I appreciate most is a true, authentic experience that the developer intended, not something that was trimmed down or made easier for the sake of bringing in the most money or using other gimmicks to increase player count. I used to think it was best to include an easy mode, but after experiencing it, I can see it’s really not the same game, like you said. This was a relatively recent realization, too, one that I didn’t know I was on the wrong side of until I saw it firsthand.
Distro choice is another issue. I didn’t want to admit that I’ve fallen behind on that one, but I’m trying to get into some of the gaming-specific distros now after seeing what’s available.
I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection, and these are just a few of the things I’ve realized I was wrong about. It’s not that I needed to be convinced of anything; I just couldn’t admit it for whatever reason. I’m trying to work on a lot of things right now.

Is the word "wrong" spelled "wrong" or "rongue"?
- You are rong

As a Gen Xer, I would agree. When we had games, you had to figure it out. From there, it just got harder and harder until you died. No pretty graphics, no saves, no easy mode.
Now get offa muh lawn!
E: words are hard

Oh, I'm also on that side of the "game difficulty" argument. I mean, I don't care much about what's offered in single player games. I usually play on the default settings. But one time I got into an argument with someone who said he should be able to unilaterally adjust his iframes and parry window in PvP, and that guy can fuck himself.
I think I have an undue emotional response because a lot of the time it feels like the other person didn't even try. It's like someone who goes to a restaurant and just immediately pours salt all over the dish. Just try it like it was delivered first.
Or they usually eat pizza, but they order this soup dish. And then they get mad they're burning their hands when they try to scoop it into their mouth. Use a spoon. Stop blaming the soup and use a spoon.
I guess more broadly my problem is I don't believe other people are any good at introspection and emotional regulation. People just feel things and make up justifications. We all do that some of the time, but I think some people are just always in that mode.

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht
- The last decade has brought a lot of clarity to me on this. People follow the herd and are tribal. If a movement gains enough momentum, most people will go along with it even if it's "against their principles". There are very few people that will stand up in front of an advancing hoard and say "Stop! This is wrong."
  I suspect Nazi Germany was the same. Most people will have accepted what was happening as the price of an easy life, and it wasn't until it was too late that they realised what had happened.

It's hard for me to know whether or not I'm on the wrong side of an argument. When people turn into bastards and brigade on me whenever I make an opinion on things. It's hard to tell sometimes because, maybe their asshole-ness just validates what I expressed and I' actually in the right. Who knows.