rtc
Yeah, I never looked into that series because I can’t afford it. Nevermind, since I have a backlog too…
And perhaps I’ll get heroes 4 while I’m at it. The review led me to avoid it at the time. I’ve played 1–3 so far (not playing the expansion of 2 fully because I didn’t like it and playing it regardless turned out to be painful), having never finished the base campaign of 3 let alone the expansions. I could play 4 soon after.
The problem stated here is an extreme oversimplification of an already extreme oversimplification, but at least it covers some individuals and political entities doing horrible things. As for any actual solution, it is punishable under the law for hurting religious sentiment, is going to attract the hatred of all who are not the most powerless (from every religion and group) for disrupting the economic way of life, and is going to attract the attention of the countless Trump-size trolls in the country (a popular example). In addition to that, it is going to attract the ire of those persons who feel that making India the next China is the solution to countering China. The population is no more than a resource in a classified labour intensive region, however flawed the system may be, and capital intensive is not as simple as it sounds. The whole country depends on the existence of a powerless segment, and parts of the world depend on those in the country who depend on the existence of a powerless segment.
In other words, get ready for many people with a vested interest in the cruel structure of the country to treat you like the most evil person in the world.
Oppressed communities also have a tendency to oppress a segment of their own, so you will have those who believe that every oppressed side is composed of saint-like persons will also be against you—in this world where it is common to choose a ‘lesser evil’. It goes without saying that the oppression itself is unacceptable, of course.
That is on a large scale. On an individual scale, those who does not follow the principle of harming others for personal gain are seen as fools, and as easy targets for harming for personal gain. It doesn’t matter how nice a person is, behind the niceness is usually hidden this acceptance. I would say that such persons who refuse to harm, however indirect the harm may be, are not fools but idiots who refuse to understand such a way of living which is dependent on cruelty. And I will continue to be such an idiot. If anyone is a fool, it is the persons with those acceptances. They mess around so much because they aren’t happy. And the most unfortunate cases are ones who try to co-operate with the ones who would harm them with the hope of reduced hostility, rather than wholly refuse to co-operate with them. Maybe even grouping up to pressurise rebelling forces to not disrupt the plans of the group. That said, the oppression itself does not get the slightest bit of justification. The attitude to harm another for gain is unacceptable to me.
The current problem is a combination of multi-layered vested interest in cruelty, embarrassment even within the country over admitting to the occurrence of such a thing, and naivety which enables the hand which oppresses oneself—rather than denying it the aid it needs to do such a thing. In other words, political reliance mentioned in the article for the starving village was probably part of the problem rather than an improvement. If you are not respected as a human, you do not improve the situation by contributing to the functioning of those who were oppressing you. The situation seems no different from a group which had outlived its usefulness, and I think it is probably what happened. It is a horrible possibility which the vested interest group would have more interest in not knowing than not having it happen. What actually happened will be buried under layers of politics due to the embarrassment I mentioned before. Deducing things is the best one can do to know what happened. However, interested persons can also put in work to solve the problems faced by the village if they desire.
Accepting accusations of being the worst human being around at the moment now…
Cool. I could still get Baba is You at some point, and I’ve never played a Zachtronics game before.
I do know one game which 95% meets all conditions put—Heroes of Might and Magic 3’s base game without mods so far. The game has a ‘fan’ trap where they tell just about everyone that a popular mod is either the definitive or best way to play. I played that first. I later played without mods, it was many times more complex and somehow better balanced. I felt abusive because the mod, at that particular time, had a first time load screen which claimed the original makers did not know what they’re doing—and merely stating anytime that you prefer it without mods would incite open hostility from many, even when no reference was made to the horrible methods used. The game itself, however, fully utilises having practical knowledge and using it to strategise which method you’ll use against your enemies (for example counter attack, drain their armies and resources, or simply charge at them with full freedom of how to go there and to adapt) and giving you freedom with hundreds of possible strategies to play with, and the game involves the simulation of choosing any side who range between the most evil to the lesser evils all fighting each other as similarly minded factions (and doesn’t really play into the harm of civilians in the game itself). There is something really enjoyable about it even if some maps could last 10 hours at a moderate pace, and even longer if you simulate a show of force with complete map domination and capture (which can be useful when you can carry over the hero levels to the next map, which is stated beforehand).
I’m playing this currently. I’m also looking into the enjoyability of wholesome sexual content, and the enjoyability of the comedic evasion of characters from people who want to do sexual acts with them but which will only lead to trouble later. But these come later and not from games.
so I don’t understand why you’d reference the very same article as a justification as to why my suspicions are wrong.
Except I gave specific reasons for why your justifications are based on things which aren’t accurate rather than merely citing the article. You don’t have to believe it. You can question it. You, however, disputed it at the start but went on to express, and in a way that is almost entirely but not completely expressive with implication doing the rest, that both the article and the poster had malicious intention. That is not expressing doubt. That is disputing, that is stating that someone was wrong. That itself was done in both a manner which gives no proof, for all your demands of it so far that others prove what they say, that the article or the poster had malicious intention. This would not be required if you expressed genukne doubt and sought more clarification in good faith. Instead, you disputed and attributed malice.
But I do care for the defaulting assumption of bad faith on my part and repeated uncharitable readings of my posts. I at no point ever made any claims about Tardigrada, nor have I cast any doubt upon their character anywhere in this thread.
To quote you
In which case, this only really makes sense to get mad at if you find yourself having particular hate for things like “the North Korean economy having slightly more money in it,” or “U.S. sanctions getting bypassed.”
You can call it whatever you want and say that is indeed isn’t attributing any implied behaviour to the poster. You replied to the post expressing that the only real possibility of sense to be made is this is driven by having particular hate for an implied not-harmful activity. You expressed such a thing while directly replying to Tardigrada’s post while not mentioning that it wasn’t directed towards Tardigrada.
You also confidently made this claim on the basis that the North Korean economy runs on the primary basis of personal spending done by the civilians in a relatively free region where people are generally allowed to do what they want even with the presence of law, which is the kind of economy where governments would care about the (segments of the) general, non-affiliated with government populations having more money and encourage such situations.
I know of nothing whatsoever that proves this.
Yet you dispute things which reference it without trying to learn more about it yourself. Instead you ask others and dispute them like it is owed to you.
It is not anyone’s problem in particular that someone doesn’t know something. You could’ve ignored the post and comments, or you could’ve genuinely sought to know more if you cared. While putting in your own effort to supplement it.
simple and calm
Perhaps I could plaster everything you say with ‘how do you know’. Not that I’m going to do it because I know how malicious doing so would be. The lack of elaboration in dispute is anything but ‘simple and calm’ because your question puts the obligation on the person saying anything to absolutely answer to you without the assurance that you actually care about the topic and want to know more, and not that you do not care about the topic regardless. Elaborate more. That would be simple and calm, if the elaboration were put in a simple and calm manner.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that they shouldn’t be stealing identities, but are they in fact doing the work they’re being paid for? That’s just called having a job. It’s not like the US government isn’t using tax money to fund its continued arms development, including nukes.
The problem for the ordinary non-political person could still be that the allegation is the work was remotely done from North Korea using remote control software on computers in the US set up by people off paid in the US; no one other than the military-based government is capable of doing this as things are. A government not generous enough to let a decent share see it made back to ‘families’ anyway. It would be a small part at most.
Given that in North Korea military jobs are the most stable ways to provide for your family, I’d say both are likely true.
The model of North Korea is mainly oppressing its own citizens, and trying a bit to oppress others as well. I don’t particularly feel sympathy for those who feel it is justified and righteous to join such an endeavour such as its military for the same of ‘feeding families’. I rather feel sympathy for those these people oppress—whether the people harming them do so out of their own choice, or because they feel there’s no other way than to go along with it to survive while believing that as long as they themselves are not in a bad situation it is fine. Causing problems for others, aiding in causing problems for others, is never fine based on any sort of justification. Even if most (if not all) governments in the world are, in some way or another, engaged in it.
In the end every horrible deed done for gain by people who have people they care for can be said to be done for ‘feeding families’ in this sense. The powerless being oppressed certainly have more real concerns to worry about than the persons harming them possibly justifying it by doing it for feeding their families, and even I do not particularly see any merit in it.
It hurts everybody you know in different ways, and it hurts people more based on their socioeconomic status. It pokes and prods and twists millions of little parts of your life, and it’s everywhere, so you have to ignore it, because complaining about it feels futile, like complaining about the weather.It isn’t. You’re battered by the Rot Economy, and a tech industry that has become so obsessed with growth that you, the paying customer, are a nuisance to be mitigated far more than a participant in an exchange of value. A death cult has taken over the markets, using software as a mechanism to extract value at scale in the pursuit of growth at the cost of user happiness.
This ‘death cult’ is just ordinary people who take the easy way of forcing others to provide what they cannot do themselves. The commercial system is little more than a convoluted mechanism to fulfill this need. While, of course, not being extremely cruel to the workers because that always has consequences. This rule goes against the very instinct and reason for those radically believing in this system though, and as a result is disregarded in time by people who believe their predecessors who bit more than they could chew were foolish for not merely suffocating the poorer classes even more, in the hope they will work for them out of desperation.
These things have a simple root—it is people being unwilling to bear the burdens and pains for becoming capable of doing what they want to do, and seeing it preferable to push the pains on others instead. The most effective way to deal with it is to disobey and push the burden of pain right back to the cause of problems, rather than take up the pain for either pennies or the promise of easing the pressure, while the majority of the benefit coming from the work you put in goes to others. Push it back, reject it, and push it back again when these persons defiantly cause more problems. They’ll end up toothless and—the horror—with take up some form of technical skill learning to survive.
An organisation without the technically skilled persons to suffer under work for them are just a bunch of persons with many desires but no way to fulfill them. All the while the structure of ‘legitimacy’, which forces people’s hand to work for practically achieving nothing, breaks down. People are forced to work hard again if they ever had the idea of simply making others do the work and benefiting from it. In this happening you do not destroy co-operation and business themselves, but only trim these perverted aspects off them.
There are ways to mitigate this.
- Interact with software which had more to do with people doing technical work rather than being involved in ‘business’ or ‘employment’.
- Reject the trend of legitimacy and embrace practicality.
- Simply do not co-operate with the entities doing these things. This thing in particular works even in the most hopeless seeming situations. Also, casually disobey.
- Move towards being more and more technically skilled yourself. It does not necessarily have to be with computers, if you prefer not to. You will find yourself not dependent on anything in an absolute manner, and these organisations will lose out on one more user they need to survive—because they work that inefficiently with their already less effective methods of operation.