• 0 Posts
  • 138 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle
  • People don’t really like to read the articles before commenting, huh.

    Knowing Stardew was such a beloved game, I knew I had to get context before judging the author because it could be read both ways.

    People who assume games not changing = criticism are telling us more about their own uncharitable view of others than anything else.

    EDIT: That said, if I were to offer criticism, I feel like the author gives too much credit to Stardew as though it invented or pioneered the tight gameplay loop: perhaps at least some mention could have been made to Harvest Moon, the game from which Stardew borrows - and perfects - most of its major systems.

    Also to be fair, it doesn’t go anywhere with that thought that Stardew hasn’t changed. Felt a little low-effort, like a retrospective on Stardew that just basically listed what people liked about it.





  • I do spend my time in libraries, thank you very much :) Didn’t expect there to be gatekeeping on libraries, but here we are.

    And a big part of such activities is either that they’re cordoned off and airgapped (and are done on select timings which are telegraphed way ahead of time) or are themselves quiet. Drinking and socialising to me don’t come under that same category. I’ve been to a library next to a board game shop and been struck by the difference in noise level and distraction there, so if it comes down to what the OP is actually suggesting, I’m skeptical it won’t intrude on others’ needs for a quiet, private place.





  • It can work if the politicians are willing to change to listen to their voter base. Both war parties aren’t single-issue parties. If parties want to win the democratic mandate to enact other policies, they need to play ball with their electorate. That’s the entire point of a democracy - that the electorate gets to be heard. It seems ridiculous that one side is enacting policies that are almost across-the-board unattractive to their demographic, and they’re getting away with it because it can’t be helped, we can’t vote for the other guy, after all. (Obviously the other side is worse, but presumably their side loves their evil policies.)

    Your argument basically amounts to “because our political parties will never listen to the people”, which to me is pretty damning, and ensures that the DNC can continue to never listen to their voters. Do I want Trump to win? Absolutely not, even as someone not in the US. But the DNC can’t be allowed to keep looking at these numbers, shrug, and say people will vote for them anyway.

    Edit: My main point is that if Biden loses this because people aren’t willing to vote for him, maybe some of the blame should go to the DNC and not just the “stupid voters”?




  • Between Biden originally saying that he wasn’t sure if he would run for a second term (in 2019, to be fair), and comments from 2023 that he’s only running because he doesn’t think anyone else can beat Trump, I don’t think it’s far-fetched to think that he would not run just because he’s “the incumbent president”.

    I do also buy the argument that people who would vote for Biden wouldn’t suddenly vote for Trump if another Democratic candidate won the primary. In fact, I feel like from discourse on this platform it seems like the opposite is true: some people would vote for Trump simply because the DNC continues to push Biden.


  • Not sure if I’m not getting something or you’re not getting something, but it doesn’t seem like a non-sequitur. The idea is that if the DNC chooses its candidates, it can force Biden to step down by pressuring him, forcing him to take the route of “heroically stepping down” (publicly) return2ozma predicts will happen.

    Now I don’t think it’s likely because Biden seems as establishment as it gets, but saying that the DNC chooses who wins the primary is not a non-sequitur in that scenario.