binux
@binux@sh.itjust.works
I must not Reddit. Reddit is the mind-killer.
- Comment on The hypocrisy of YouTube. Better not curse on a video but this is a perfectly fine ad 1 day ago:
I guess that title could maybe be construed as fine if only strangely implicative for the platform, but that next sentence? “Women who always say yes”? Yikes. Not sure how that can’t be anything other than plain gross.
- Comment on the Home Alone house then and now 1 day ago:
They both kind of suck tbh. The first looks like a nightmare to acid trip in and the other looks like a wizard sucked all the colour out of it.
- Comment on Former Valve writer says PlayStation killing physical discs is no conspiracy: "You, the consumer, have made your choice, and the choice is for digital" 1 week ago:
Give me one reason to prove that the universe is apathetic. For context of my bias, I consider myself agnostic, so I really don’t lean either way regarding that question.
Regardless, you won’t be able to. Which makes your entire argument inherently invalid.
So it’s funny that you need to accuse me of being “backed into a corner” to get out of dodge of your own weird and contradictory standpoint. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, I suppose. I can’t imagine you’re very satisfied being utterly at odds with every spooky idea in your eyes like that though, instead of seeking common ground in a more courteous manner, or at least agreeing to disagree.
Additionally, and I realize this is the area you’re trying to goad me into, but there’s really nothing “emotional” per se about where I’m coming from here. I certainly have attachments to my beliefs and that gives me motivation to defend them, but at the end of the day you’re really just providing entertainment to me. Silly, if not dumb entertainment, but still. Conversely, and not to go “no, you”, but there’s definitely a lot of emotionally-charged rhetoric you seem to be leaning on with your groundless accusations and whatnot from whatever comes to mind (e.g. your initial sentence).
Anyway I’m going to leave you to your gaping void of pseudo-theory now because it’s starting to feel like I’m reading ChatGPT prompts with each of your responses (whether you’re actually using AI or not I really don’t care, it’s just getting monotonous). As I’ve said several times now you’re trying to assert your own framework of ideas as fact while simultaneously labelling me as solely doing so. Likely somewhat of a form of projection on your part, though I won’t psychoanalyze you too hard, nor will I claim it as objective for the sake of consistency. Thanks for the break in my doomscroll in any case.
- Comment on Former Valve writer says PlayStation killing physical discs is no conspiracy: "You, the consumer, have made your choice, and the choice is for digital" 1 week ago:
Woah there, ethnocentrism is quite the claim pal. Especially when you have absolutely nothing to back it up with aside from my own personal opinions (which I certainly never claimed to be entirely objective despite what you seem to be asserting).
Now admittedly, I am defining objective truth through my own interpretative lens. However, you’re not exactly an angel yourself in that regard, which is precisely why I’m doing it in the first place.
To make my point clear, I’ll give a few examples of what you yourself had written earlier:
- Even your premise that the prosperity of our species is inherently “good”, relies on our own subjective bias that we prefer being alive. The universe itself doesn’t care.
Despite my own opinions on the matter of whether the universe “cares” or not, this is an inherently subjective assertion. There’s no way to prove such a metaphysical claim.
- If your baseline for objective morality is “things that help our species prosper,” then a corporation shifting to digital-only game licenses has absolutely zero impact on human survival. By your own logic, it’s completely amoral.
Again, blatantly subjective. On what grounds is the shift to digital-only media not harmful? And even if you were to back it up, it would still be subjective regardless. There’s nothing materially concrete about any of your potential evidence. I realize I’m somewhat undermining my point here, but for the sake of demonstrating the folly of your handwaving of any viewpoint aside from your own with accusations of “ethnocentrism”, “philosophical contradictions”, “historical illiteracy”, etc., I’ll let it slide.
On that topic (of historical illiteracy) my point wasn’t that people could own goods for the majority of human existence and that was that. No, my point was that there has never been a system quite like this where consumers have been sold media under the impression of obtaining ownership when that isn’t the case at all. You can make all the claims you want about the past, but specifically regarding media it’s never been like this. You wouldn’t see digital enshittification happening in 10 000 BCE.
You’re also being bizarrely presumptuous of my understanding of property and how it’s been understood in the cultural zeitgeist. I’m inclined to believe you’re being disingenuous but for the sake of charity I’ll permit you the benefit of the doubt. I’m well aware that the concept of guaranteed individual rights (particularly from liberalism), especially with regards to property, are a very recent development in relation to human existence. My viewpoint comes from my own disgust with corporate entities dicking over people who by no means deserve it under any rational perspective regarding our current laws and establishments.
Additionally (and I know you know this), human society has never been so cut and dry as property having been strictly communal for the entirety of our existence until, say, 20 millennia ago. Obviously we’ve been in anarchistic societies for quite a long time as a species, but it’s not like you couldn’t own anything. That’s just ridiculous, even without modern liberal beliefs. Barter systems have been a thing for essentially forever (trading labour for labour by way of abstract ideals, far from a “recent cultural anomaly”), and aside from very select and overall arbitrary differences, humans in the Stone Age were essentially identical to ourselves now, ideas and all, however early in development said ideas were. This isn’t Plato’s Cave.
When you claim that … changing a software licensing model sets an “awful precedent” … you aren’t defending humanity. You are aggressively defending the modern Western consumer culture you happen to live in, mistaking your local economic norms for the laws of nature.
Forgive me, but I find this part in particular kind of funny if not really strange. First of all, it’s not as simple as “changing a licensing model”, and since I know that and I know you know that, I’m not even going to bother addressing that. What really gets me is this idea that I’m mistaking my culture for the “laws of nature”.
Says who? You? Because I certainly didn’t say anything to even suggest that. I’m certainly not “aggressively” defending it either, that’s quite a silly term to use for a dumb back-and-forth on the internet. I’m well aware there’s a difference between reality and culture (clearly).
It seems you’re mistaking my consideration of contemporary society and its innate relevance as a treatment of its doctrines as dogma. Which really couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not a cult member of “Western society” as you seem to be weirdly painting me as. I merely believe that if people can reasonably come to expect one thing from society, and they get none of that as was promised, it’s hypocritical and thereby wrong. Now you can make all the claims you want about it being a “cultural concept”, but that’s theory, not reality. Theory doesn’t improve anything on its own, especially when applied so pretentiously.
Anyway, because your arguments are inherently broken by means of your assertion of the “subjectivity of my beliefs”, while you literally assert your subjective beliefs at the same time as reality, your entire point is just futile. You can’t deny the importance of a culture and its influence on the world while at the same time asserting your own beliefs as the singular truth. That’s nothing short of hypocrisy.
- Comment on Former Valve writer says PlayStation killing physical discs is no conspiracy: "You, the consumer, have made your choice, and the choice is for digital" 1 week ago:
You’re confusing biological utility with objective truth.
Confusing them? No. We simply have different standards for what qualifies as objective truth. For me, if your truth gets you harmed or worse, it’s wrong. Simple as that. I am acutely aware that there isn’t any universal moral standard when it comes to existence at large, but for my own and humanity’s purposes, those which help us get by better than others are the “truer” ones.
Even your premise that the prosperity of our species is inherently “good”, relies on our own subjective bias that we prefer being alive. The universe itself doesn’t care.
As with what I just stated, it doesn’t matter whether the universe itself cares or not. The universe can frankly do whatever the hell it wants (as it certainly does); reality to me and many others is that which I can sense and experience in my lifetime, and that’s all it ever will be. For any reasonable person’s purposes, the universe’s (as a personification) stake in their lives shouldn’t hold any stake in what they do or do not do. And that especially goes for their morality. Nihilism is equivalent to just being mindless and inert matter on a biological level, and that’s honestly just sad given what humanity and its qualifiers have been able to achieve.
If your baseline for objective morality is “things that help our species prosper,” then a corporation shifting to digital-only game licenses has absolutely zero impact on human survival. By your own logic, it’s completely amoral.
Wrong. As with any complex systems we’ve been able to create in our societies, this will certainly be up for debate, but you’ll have to concede that not being able to own the things you purchase (as humans have done and have been able to do for the majority, if not the entirety of our existence) sets a frankly awful precedent for what these corporations and governments will feel they are entitled to do. To pretend it has always been like this is or it’s inevitable is fatalism, which like nihilism, is sad, and frankly pathetic. I pity that mentality.
If you still want to argue that going digital-only is “immoral,” you have to abandon your evolutionary argument and admit you’re just projecting a subjective cultural preference onto a consumer inconvenience.
And what are these “consumer inconveniences”? Because by your logic, the universe shouldn’t care about that either, considering that it’s a human construct and therefore abstracted from the “objective features” of reality. This is the main problem with your mentality. If morality doesn’t matter, then nothing does. And if nothing matters, then this topic is redundant. It’s nothing more than a spending of entropy.
Think what you want to think, believe what you want to believe. But if you’re seriously following the route of nihilism as if it will lead to some sort of peace of mind, I’ve got some bad news for you: It’s just going to make you feel worse. And with that, I’ve got a funny, albeit facetious image relevant to this conversation that I’ve been looking for an excuse to use somewhere. So here it is. Don’t take it too seriously. (Or do, I’m not your dad.)
- Comment on Former Valve writer says PlayStation killing physical discs is no conspiracy: "You, the consumer, have made your choice, and the choice is for digital" 1 week ago:
Ironically enough the topic of whether or not morality is ‘subjective’ is also inherently up for interpretation. There’s literally a whole philosophical field of study for this.
That being said, I’ll counter this sentiment by saying that the things we find to be ‘moral’ as a species are more often than not the things that help our species prosper (i.e. taboos for murder, theft, bullying, sexual violence, etc.). Sure, there may be a certain degree of variation within the moral frameworks of a culture, but you’ll be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t have that baseline of enforcing against most forms of explicit harm that can come about from members of that society. If that weren’t the case then we would have gone extinct a long time ago.
- Comment on The same adult daughter who has trouble loading a dishwasher efficientlyly... 3 weeks ago:
Incredible parenting strategy to post your grievances about her online instead of communicating openly with her about it.
- Comment on Hideo Kojima ‘really sad’ about PlayStation killing discs, ‘frightened’ for future of ownership 3 weeks ago:
No, the art of game-making is making a fun game. The story a game may or may not have is purely supplemental for the sake of that goal.
- Comment on Is America currently a Plutocracy? And is currently rounding the base toward an Ochlocracy? How did we let ourselves get here? Has any other country been through this? And came back? 5 weeks ago:
That’s the implication is it not?
”Hey I have a question, but it might be kind of stupid so I don’t know if it’s worth asking…”
”Hey, there’s no such thing as a stupid question! Go ahead, what is it?”
”Hey, thanks! So, is America a plutocracy-“
”What are you, stupid? Yeah, you’re definitely an idiot. Stupid idiot. Get out of here.”
- Comment on *Honk honk* 1 month ago:
Again, that’s only from your (biased) viewpoint. I’m sure you or I can say that with relatively little consideration from our cushy positions in wealthy countries, but try and get, say, the average Sudanese citizen to agree with that. It’s really not gonna work.
Plus to agree with your sentiment is to say that capitalism is worth the suffering it causes. I’m gonna have to disagree with that on principle.
- Comment on *Honk honk* 1 month ago:
Only if you’re basing your assertion on inherently biased criteria. For many in the west it’s better sure, but what about the majority of people in impoverished countries, or less fortunate people in general? How about non-human species that have been losing their natural habitats to pollution and global warming inch by inch, or just human interference in general? Or even species that have been outright driven to extinction by human activity?
I’m not so sure any of that is worth it for a new smart phone every year with only marginally better features. And I hear the new hyped-up technology is pretty much the epitome of an infinite amount of monkeys on typewriters desperate to type up Shakespeare.
- Comment on My Arrakis 1 month ago:
He’s got chode energy for sure
- Comment on Fellow Bootstraps Buddy 👋 1 month ago:
Saturn devouring his son but nonchalantly
- Comment on [Video] Hasan Piker wonders why he is banned from the UK but Elon Musk is not after inciting race-riots in Belfast 1 month ago:
Explain this then pal… bet you can’t
- Comment on Email came out of nowhere 1 month ago:
There’s a multitude of ways to correct someone without coming off as a pedantic prick in the process
- Comment on Pro tip 1 month ago:
There’s always a 10th dentist
- Comment on Pro tip 1 month ago:
I’m just imagining someone saying this in response to OP’s joke at a party and this is the (natural) response
- Submitted 1 month ago to [deleted] | 20 comments
- Comment on New Polycule Just Dropped 1 month ago:
If it’s ageism then there shouldn’t be any minimum age for voting either, no? By your logic, since there’s no set age for lacking the mental cognition to vote, under-18s should be allowed to as well.
- Comment on What’s your favorite video game that most people didn’t like ?? 1 month ago:
It says it’s playable with it on the Steam page so probably. I’m not sure if Ubisoft made it extra janky with something like Ubisoft Connect though.
- Comment on What’s your favorite video game that most people didn’t like ?? 1 month ago:
Watch Dogs, the first one specifically. I know Ubisoft has had a pretty bad track record, especially in recent years, but I’ve played through that game a bunch of times and always had a good time with it. Even in its worse parts its still dumb fun.
The story honestly aged really well too with how tech companies and governments are mingling now.
- Comment on What’s your favorite video game that most people didn’t like ?? 1 month ago:
Maybe not burn your house down, but for a while it would have filled your house with piles and piles of useless garbage.
That’s to say it took up an insane amount of storage to have installed until they fixed it a while back. It was apparently because they had some bizarre idea of duplicating files over and over to make load times faster for hard drive users. It went down from something crazy like ~150 gb to around 30 lol.
- Submitted 2 months ago to [deleted] | 3 comments
- Comment on What is a game you can’t understand why its so popular ? 2 months ago:
Basically any battle royale game, they’re marginally fun with friends but they’ve always felt way too repetitive and frustration-inducing for me to ever pay much mind to them. It definitely doesn’t help that the most obvious example (Fortnite) is essentially the epitome of consumer-bait
- Comment on Destiny 2 is dead: "active development" ends next month after one final update, but Bungie says the MMO will still be "playable" 2 months ago:
To be fair to Hello Games I’m pretty sure that Sony breathing down their necks for the release of No Man’s Sky really screwed them over during initial development. They had to rush big time and it was a huge increase in scope from their previous titles. Definitely not trying to undermine them though, NMS is a pretty great game now, especially compared to how rocky the start was.
As for R6 I remember hearing pretty recently there was a huge hacking incident that lead to players getting free shit en masse and effectively flipped the game economy on its head. I don’t know how they handled the fallout from that but considering it’s Ubisoft I doubt they learned anything substantial. Though if there’s one inadvertently good thing they did it was kicking off the Stop Killing Games movement by shutting down servers for The Crew.
- Comment on Destiny 2 is dead: "active development" ends next month after one final update, but Bungie says the MMO will still be "playable" 2 months ago:
Correct me if I’m being ignorant here but I don’t know if there’s ever been a single company that’s pulled itself out of degenerate business practices
- Comment on The idiot mayor of Toronto extended bar hours to 4am so fans in Toronto can enjoy the World Cup no matter time the game is 2 months ago:
No this is Doug, he’s the premier of Ontario right now. They both crawled out of the same hellish crevice though
- Comment on An 82-year-old YouTuber grandma was raided by police and SWATs during her live stream last night where she plays Minecraft to raise money for her grandsons cancer. Authorities brought 20 police cars 2 months ago:
I think the idea generally is to replace the police with social welfare programs and unarmed crisis responders, but that’s jumping through so many hoops that it just sounds way too simplistic tbh. It sounds practical, but it treats the problem like it’s something that can be improved with just a few institutions reforming/being abolished.
There’s never been a society without some form of justice system since cruelty is a part of human nature, and at this point these systems are far too intertwined and embedded in our societies for them to change dramatically without some form of societal collapse or retraction.
Idealism is well and good but the things many want in place of police institutions seem like they’re ignoring how complex and non-specific the issues are as a whole. It’s definitely not a one size fits all situation, especially with how many factors there are. People can disagree with me but I’d prefer to hear why at least.
- Comment on The idiot mayor of Toronto extended bar hours to 4am so fans in Toronto can enjoy the World Cup no matter time the game is 2 months ago:
When his crackhead brother died the monkey’s paw curled and now we’re stuck with this 250 pound mosquito
- Comment on An 82-year-old YouTuber grandma was raided by police and SWATs during her live stream last night where she plays Minecraft to raise money for her grandsons cancer. Authorities brought 20 police cars 2 months ago:
Yeah, this is what a lot of people fail to take into account when it comes to the purpose of policing in society. There’s obviously a lot of inherent problems with the way the police are structured in a lot of countries as a whole, but to believe that we can just make do without something like them altogether is pretty shortsighted to say the least. I think that prevents a lot of otherwise sympathetic people from taking the backlash against police institutions seriously.
