bouh

joined 1 year ago
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

I wish it was, but it isn't. It usually about them being able to ban you from playing for whatever reason they deem worthy.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Horse archers, or skirmishing units in general, are countered by archers or siege units. Unless the game is wildly unbalanced it always works.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You might as well warn about the sun eating the earth and turning it into hell. It's not too soon, only 5 billion years left.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And yet 2 centuries ago some people were already thinking, exactly like you, that there was too many humans for the earth to sustain them. You can see how wrong he was. The fact that you refuse to learn from past mistakes is quite telling though.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You know who thought like you? Thomas Malthus. 2 centuries ago.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

No nuclear accident has the ability to end life on earth. It is not a possibility.

And humans in the past would regularly suffer from famine and epidemic, and child death was crazy (as was mother death during birth).

[–] bouh@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No, a language is not just a language. I fact, it's a bunch of compilers. How many there are and the hardware they work on is what matters.

And as a matter of fact, rust isn't as much of an industry standard as C++ is.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Your mistake is to consider an election is a rational competition. It's not. Not anymore, because medias make it impossible to know the truth. So it is more like a football match. People have the team they support, and for most nothing will change their mind because there's too much propaganda. When almost everything is propaganda, you get to choose the reality you "prefer".

So the point of the campaign is more about convincing people to vote in order to defeat the opposing team. Or to persuade the other team to concede.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

That's blatantly wrong. There is a tradition in France for all parties to ally to prevent the fascists from accessing power, but that's only an election alliance. It barely worked for the last election : the left does vote against the fascists every time, but some liberals refused to stand back in favor of some left candidates, and liberal voters largely refused to vote for the left because of the anti-left propaganda. This lead to the fascists making a third of the assemblé nationale.

Now the president must choose a prime minister, but the left arrived first, and he refuses to let them get the power. So he waits for anyone to accept an alliance with the liberals which is not happening yet.

Predictions are going that he will end choosing a PM that is fascist compatible rather than letting the left have any power in the executive.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

For the first, it can be women too. For misogyny it's harder. But there is a trend currently to attract and radicalise women into conservatism too. The trad wives movement. I don't remember the names but there are movement for spirituality and naturalism that are also linked to trad wives. That is also a slippery slope : first you hook them spirituality, and at the end you have JK Rowling who is an anti-trans activist.

Women and men are not in the same groups simply because conservatives are misogynistic so they like to separate men and women.

Overall it is a culture war lead by the far right.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's a slippery slope. First it's either a community they can share anything with, or it is a subject dear to them that they see people give solution to. Then, slowly, one idea at a time, they get litteraly corrupted. Ideas are imprinted through repetition, values are suggested. Then, or before, you imprint the idea that the others are lying. This is key because it seed doubt in everything, but as he is closer from this group, this group get to imprint its own ideas through repetition alone. Distance is built with relatives so that the group is the only group he has. Then if he starts to disagree, he will be kicked, sometimes also punished, and he'll be left alone, or at least he must be convinced of it. Once there radicalisation is a process that's hard to stop.

Doubt, distrust, and a group to be with are the key ingredients. Liberalism is a fertile ground for this because it promotes individualism when humans are social creatures. So it's very easy to find people in need of a social group that gives belonging. And racism makes the easiest pretense : you belong because of your blood, or because you're born here.

For sexism, it's mostly a reactionary backlash, and secondly this liberalism problem of promoting individualism to humans who seek belonging. Feminism did won, and the old way of treating women is being addressed. But it is a process, and while we know what's bad, we don't have much new examples to follow. Yet most people have been trained in the old way, so now they are at lost. It's not the first reason why they're alone, liberalism has this place, but it is far easier to blame it on women and feminism than to try to build a new society. And also, it again gives them belonging with men like them that understands them and give explanations and solutions to their problems. Not good ones, but that's not the point.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Nexus: the Jupiter incident. It is a now a bit old tactical space combat game with a big focus on the narrative. It's awesome, but I never see it mentioned anywhere.

view more: next ›