KombatWombat

I'm not gaslighting. There's a way to do it that's permanent, but if you do it wrong it will revert. I'm speaking from personal experience.

Back when I was on reddit more there was a subreddit called r/comedyhomicide, where people would post examples of something funny being sabotaged by tagging on something unnecessary rather than ending on the punchline. It always reminded me of a laugh track, as if the audience needs to be primed with how to react. I also think people nowadays feel more of a need to insert how they feel about something rather than just sharing the thing.

I have had them disabled for years. You have to go through the registry. It's cumbersome but it doesn't take long and is permanent.

Well I liked reddit overall. My main annoyances with it were the prevalence of power tripping mods/admins and the removal of third party apps (and too many ads otherwise). Lemmy at least gives options and accountability when it comes to the former and fully resolves the latter. You still have meta drama and at times annoying community members but overall I view it as an improved alternative.

Lemmy is just simply a spinoff of Reddit, just a place where the rejects go to, to shit up on everyone at any given time.

This doesn't seem like a fair judgement. I know some people got banned on reddit but for the most part Lemmy's users are here because they prefer to be here. It's not like there's a high bar to pass to be a redditor. I left from the API apocalypse, as did many others. The bad apples are the most memorable but I've found the vast majority of people here to be assets to the community. Also, when making broad judgements about the user base you should remember that you're here too.

I didn't look through the other thread so I won't comment on it too much. But I don't think it's fair to complain about other people looking through an example you introduced to see how it supports your argument. And if you did say you wanted to kill someone there then that would be fair game to bring up as a significant ommission from your summary of the "otherwise civil discussion".

Sexuality is a spectrum. Straight/Gay doesn't mean no attraction to a particular sex, just that the attraction isn't significant. Not sure why he would think you need to have sex with both to qualify though.

Breath of the Wild is generally pretty good about letting you explore your own way. For example, the exposition ghost at the start explicitly acknowledges you could go straight to the final boss after leaving the tutorial area if you want, and there are plenty of ways a determined player can reach areas faster than the typical progression routes would take them.

But my goodness the pitiful weapon durability made me want to avoid combat. I distinctly remember coming across a white lionel relatively early and determining I shouldn't bother trying to fight simply because I didn't have enough weapons to get through its health bar.

Honestly I would consider that being a self-employed small business owner.

Whatever a "Kroger" might be

Kroger is a supermarket chain in much of the US, but some of their stores use different branding. I just meant it to be a recognizable example of somewhere you might get your groceries.

And I'm not frustrated, it's not about the money, it's the principle.

When I said frustrated, I meant in a general sense about the economy, as in higher grocery prices. But I guess I did misunderstand your motivation for this. So it's not about how much suppliers/stores are actually charging, just that they raised prices at all? And you view that as stealing?

Someone in the chain did raise prices for items I can't boycott, I don't care who.

And I guess that's the problem in my eyes. If you intend to punish someone, it should be focussed on whoever is responsible. I'm sure you would agree it is unreasonable to yell at a cashier when your card gets declined for example. I'm also skeptical that you can't boycott, but without specifics I'll have to take your word for it.

Also I don't need justification. To whom should I justity? to you? lol.

I judged you because you shared this with other people on the thread, which I view as inviting feedback. But you are right that my opinion isn't important. What matters is that you can justify your actions to yourself. Whatever your morals are, I doubt it includes indiscriminate punishment. Maybe ask yourself things like, "What would it be like if everyone acted the way I do?" or "Will this lead to things getting better or worse?".

Well said. To be clear, I agree with your outlook on human nature, but I try to check myself on not being optimistic to the point of ignoring people's history. People do change, but we can't presume in which direction that will be. We must remember improvement is a hope and a genuine possibility, but not an expectation. On the other hand, Orwell is regarded as insightful for good reason but of course he is also very cynical about people and the future.

A catspaw is just a term for someone who is used as a tool of another to their detriment. It comes from a French fable where a monkey convinces a cat to grab some roasting chestnuts for them to eat, but the monkey eats them all while the cat ends up burning its paw.

Edit: This is the fable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_and_the_Cat

People tend to approve of their own representatives, and blame others in Congress for unsolved issues. We have become good at identifying problems while minimizing our own contributions to them. And in general, as a country we are very divided on the way things should be changing.

For presidential candidates especially, I've found people tend to latch on to reasons to dislike someone and ignore positive things, except perhaps for their favorite candidate. It's a form of tribalism. But from what I remember Trump and Hilary were both considered distinctly weak candidates at the time.

Yeah, I view them as catspaws. They are assisting someone working against their interests without understanding how they are being used. You can show sympathy for them while nonetheless opposing them.

And you're right that everyone should have the humility to accept they also sabotage themselves sometimes. But electing who will lead the country is high stakes and some accountability is fair.

You were correct in the first half then you fell right off.

I was going to comment that as well. They've identified the problem correctly, but rather than trying to fix it they decide to cement it in. We want people to be able to accept they were wrong and think (and vote) differently going forward. That sort of growth is how things get better. This vindictiveness just makes people defensive and want to double down on mistakes when doubt and regret could have lead to character development.

By all means, hold people accountable, but if you don't allow them to change you are giving up hope entirely.