GoodbyeBlueMonday

It's almost funnier than Frank providing a certificate that he doesn't have "Donkey Brains" in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT4vVLvvb2U

To try to answer, succinctly (which I'm bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn't get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn't have a problem with 3 and 4, since it's harder to see what the series could have been...as pretentious as that sounds.

Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I'm not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.

So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.

One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It's what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That's my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there's folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.

Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it's good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.

I think I'm confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there'd definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they're willing to take a chance.

This book speaks to it better than I can: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs/

Specifically take a look at

Chapter 3: Why Do Those in Bullshit Jobs Regularly Report Themselves Unhappy? (On Spiritual Violence, Part 1)

Thank you for explaining what your point was, but it's absolutely a non sequitur. My original point was about the validity of criticizing something because it's happening by more than one bad actor. Not quibbling about whether an small part of my statement ("little influence") is 100% correct or not. My point wasn't about litigating whether or not the US is a democracy, so: it was a non sequitur.

That said, it's clearly a waste of time to engage with you, because if you're going to be bent out of shape for being "accused" of a non sequitur and then start calling me "a schlub that lives in a fascist empire", then you don't have the temperament to actually fight a fascist empire. Some of us do more than vote and complain online.

Thanks, I respect your take too. I fully understand that I'm an optimist, and will desperately cling to any shred of hope we have. Not a position everyone holds, and I don't hold it against anyone to not have hope for humanity's future, as much as it conflicts with my own thoughts. In any case, I hope you have a good one! Thanks for a good discussion.

That's entirely my point though: we can't reason with a deadly virus, but we can with most humans. Or at least some humans. OK maybe a few. The point is, I don't think it's logical to throw in the towel.

That isn't human exceptionalism in my view, either: because I don't believe we're inherently special animals when it comes to how we treat the environment. My point is that most animals inherently exploit resources, and drive others to extinction. We just managed to make guns and power tools and propaganda. Once humans are gone, we have no reason to think that any species that manages to start some technologically advanced civilization will be any better. So either we eradicate all biological life to ensure that it doesn't eradicate biological life...or we try to improve humanity, because despite things, we can often be reasoned with. Humanity has gotten better, even though it hasn't improved enough, when looking at human civilization over the last few thousand years. That's my point: not that we don't deserve calamity, but that we can - if we fight hard enough - try to steer our own species toward a better future for everyone.

Who knows though, maybe if humanity is gone the bonobos will rise up to take our place. They're pretty chill, all things considered.

Another non sequitur, and in any case not what I said (nor implied, unless you read my reply in bad faith).

That's a non sequitur at best.

That's the easy way out. Please stick around and help the rest of us try to steer humanity in the right direction. Help the moral arc of the universe bend a little faster. It's hard work, and most of us won't see much of a return. But long-term, let's hope that humanity can.

To clarify: I'm a biologist. The perspective you've taken is basically "Noble Savage" but for animals. Animals are pushed to extinction all the time. Yes, we're incredibly good at it, and we're good at coming up with highfalutin reasons for killing things, but look at chimps, ants, dolphins...nature is brutal. It sucks to be most animals. Say a habitat changes, and a species "needs" to move into an adjacent similar habitat that's already occupied by one or more species exploiting those resources? Extinction of something is pretty likely. That's all very much an oversimplification, of course, but this is a lemmy comment.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111310 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-it-comes-waging-war-ants-humans-have-lot-common-180972169/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

The hope I have is our intelligence. The fact that you recognize this existential threat is more than a badger is capable of.

What many of us imagine is that it's bad when either nation does this.

Yes, it is hypocritical for most US politicians to criticize Russia's interference in US elections, but it's not incorrect.

It certainly isn't wrongthink for those of us who have little influence on what alphabet agencies do to complain about it happening just because it's happening elsewhere, too.

Sorry, I didn't articulate my thoughts well: I meant that when I CTRL+F'ed the PDF searching for "dissent", the second of three places in the PDF that it "finds" the word dissent is literally behind the word "concurring" in "SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., concurring in judgment" on page 15 of the PDF.

I also don't have legal training to dissect most of what's in there, but I find it interesting that dissent is embedded in the PDF behind the title to their opinion.