The store is simple, though. It has archetypal builds (or whatever they are called), like “cooldown reduction item”, “life steal item”, etc. I think the hardest part will be memorizing yet another set of heroes to play decently against them.
Let’s move on.
I enjoy MOBAs a lot, but their communities tend to be so toxic… I’m playing other multiplayer games because I am tired of the toxicity (among other things).
I personally do not care that much about the survival of entire species (including ours); I care more about the lives of the individuals. To illustrate this, it saddens me when we cause extinctions, but a little more because of the animals that suffered in the process and a little less about the whole “loss” of a form of life. Yet, it all is sad.
How do I deal with this climate change sadness? I guess I don’t see it separately from other sad things from humanity (and existence, but let’s focus on humanity). I have accepted the fact that most human beings are morally questionable in my book, this causes the world to be worse for everyone in it, and no amount of reasoning with most of them (about the benefit for them and others of being more conscious about their lives) will change it for now.
At some point, some have felt that a better society is just a step ahead of us because it’s relatively easy in material terms, but now I feel it much farther as the social factors are not as easy. I guess I have surrendered to a certain idea of psychological determinism. If we imagine a person has an object we want at their reach, while it’s out of our reach, and we could get it if they only cooperate, we can feel frustrated when they don’t. “Why do they make it so difficult? It’s as simple as reaching for the object and grabbing it for us. Just do it! Why are they waiting for? Ugh!”. But if we start from the idea that there’s a chance they won’t help us because they simply can’t be bothered (different reasons as to why), and that’s probably not fixable, we won’t feel that level of frustration for their inaction and we will strategize differently how to get that object.
By the way, I don’t think selfishness or self-centeredness or whatever is individualism, nor that altruism is communitarianism. I’m inclined to individualism, but that’s what makes me think that just as my life and freedom are valuable, so are others’. I do not like societies that are communitarian because they drown the individual (in false responsibilities, in fear of ostracism, etc.), and I hate that. We have one life and only one and we should be as free as possible, even if that means being unattached, different, whatever. The only rule for that freedom and for everything is ethics. And that’s the difference for me, that’s how I see it. Not individualistic people versus communitarian people, but people that live without an interest in being ethical (whatever that ends up meaning) and people who do.
So… I think I see a lot of these people and I don’t get as frustrated as before. I sigh and continue my day. Reading this last part, it reads a little stoic (learning that I cannot change these parts of society and focusing on the ones we can change). Stoicism is like the ibuprofen of life; paracetamol is pyrrhic skepticism. I’m bad at analogies, lol, but you get the point (I hope).
Prioritizing my health (including my mental health) has helped a lot. Good levels of everything in my body do wonders for my energy, but also my resilience, my mood, etc. Emotional regulation skills, combating stress… I know these are just common recommendations, but I don’t have more.
I’m sorry that you’re feeling down. It’s been a hard time…
I suggest arrows to navigate main comments (I think they also call them “parent comments” or something). As an example, Sync for Lemmy and Now for Reddit have them.
I mean, it’s our fault as leftists that it is an echo chamber. We have forgotten how to talk about polemic issues among ourselves. I bet we lemmings have big differences (in the details) but we are afraid of bans or talking to walls, so…
Yes, and I agreed with you except in two things. We shouldn’t take it as the whole reality because there are other paradigms/frames living at the same time, and we shouldn’t name things after this dominance in academia or academia-like discourse because knowledge is supposed to strive for the maximum impartiality possible.
Even for those extreme cases, it’s understandable to wish for that, but I’m not sure it’s healthy for the one wishing. Speaking only of people who don’t believe in the death penalty, and are breaking their moral code due to an extreme aversion, maybe it is healthy as it may be cathartic; maybe it is not as it may reinforce rumination, stressful feelings, etc. Maybe it is healthy as they can reach a slight feeling of justice or equilibrium again in the world; maybe it is not healthy because they’ll feel they themselves committed a moral transgression pushed by the atrocities of these people. I don’t know, maybe it’s different from person to person.
I like your comment. It’s interesting to consider how the construction of gender varies not only across cultures (e.g. what is expected of womanhood in Canada versus in Japan today), but also across different cultures perception of each other.
In my country, women who are indigenous looking (physically speaking) are considered less elegant or classy than their white/whiter counterparts by these white/whiter people. These people see their femininity as not wide enough because a mix of classism and racism/colorism makes them believe that an indigenous-looking woman can only put a costume, an imitation of a high class woman, because they cannot really be one (as they think money comes only from European descent, and so being classy belongs to them) and that they don’t fit those things due to their physical appearance anyways.
That’s a widespread belief turned into an aesthetic perception. Show people who believe and now feel this way an indigenous woman in a gala attire and they’ll feel something’s wrong.
I wouldn’t say this is a non-binary experience, though. I’d say this is the plurality of understandings about what is a woman and who is ‘more woman’ than who. It’s not possible to establish what a woman is simply because it is an ever changing matter. Gender, in itself, is fluid. We expect different things from it at different times, often influenced by external factors (as seen in wars, for example). I wouldn’t say this makes the people living these experiences non-binary, trans, etc. They’re imposed a rule-set by their sex at birth, by their physical characteristics, just like everyone else. “You shouldn’t behave this way”, “you should not wear this”, “do this instead”, etc.
You can only say it’s non-binary if you judge that the dominant ways are the standard. That is, that a woman of European descent with Western ways of life is the way women are, and that a deviation from that is non-binary. That’s only true in countries like mine, like the U.S., like Argentina or the Philippines, and only for the white/whiter population. Thinking that everyone else is measuring against this standard is an ignorant and inflated vision of themselves. Sure, this standard is influential, but people have their own cultures and ideas of gender aside from possible cultural interference and influence from Western values. I’m sure an indigenous woman of my country finds the way she is criticized and scrutinized for wearing different clothes obnoxious, but that’s not her whole experience as to say she lives non-binarily. She still has traditions, beliefs, and ideas of gender within her community in which she might be the epitome of womanhood. She’s only living non-binarily according to white/whiter people. These people shouldn’t be the ones from which names are given. It reminds me of the dichotomy of “white - POC”. Why are people in the entire world categorized as “of European descent - any other” as if Europe should be the center and the defining criteria in human populations? While these divisions are common within groups (“Jews - gentiles”, “Christians - heathens”), they shouldn’t be used outside limited contexts and definitely not in science or any serious analysis. But that’s Western egos, especially U.S.-American egos, I guess…
And not just boys.
I mean, the people still exist and the need for honest opinions is still there. We just need to find a new place where money isn’t such a big problem (although it will always be a problem to some degree). I really think a more stable and easy to use Lemmy could attract a large crowd.
I don’t remember the scene, but the caption and something about it makes it feel like decisiveness, maybe frustration finally made into a plan.
Creatine instead of collagen, if you ask me. Creatine helps build muscle. Muscles keep everything in place (which is especially important in case of hypermobility) and they relieve work from other parts.
No, they’re not fully developed, but they distinguish actions morally speaking (even older children do) and they can choose to do better.
Don’t worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.
Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that’s the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.
Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.
People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.
And… that’s it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.
Oh! That’s a complicated consequence, yes. I cannot lie and say that studying sad things won’t ever make one sad. It’s… hard.
I don’t think it is a rule that it is going to warp one’s vision, but I’ve seen people getting depressed and definitely biased when studying philosophical pessimism. It seems like something that only happens in jokes or memes, but no, reading Arthur Schopenhauer or whoever can be dangerous if one is already vulnerable to depression, isolation, etc.
I definitely advise discretion. And it’s not because they’re dark monsters, monks of death dressed in black robes. There’s nothing too morbid about the books; that’s probably just the myth time has created around them. In reality, their danger is just pondering on dark aspects of life that can be disheartening if one is not prepared. Even when the reading is for high school or university, or for curiosity, I think these authors should be picked with an open mind and a serene “heart”.
Thank you for reading and answering.
There’s also antinatalism from a deontological perspective.
But, from the negative utilitarianists I’ve known and seen, I’ve found an intense debate about the animal reproduction question. Some say antinatalism should include non-human animals and any other sentient being; some say it’s a human-only matter. I do not have an opinion.
Yes, common objections are that the economy could crash or that humanity could go extinct. I don’t think these are good objections, and I have different reasons. It seems like a bad “an end justifies the means” way of thinking sometimes.
Honestly, the economic crash one is weird. The logic is that we must sacrifice our present and immediate future (that happens to be millions of lives) so that other lives are better (supposedly). Huh? It reminds me of the argument I heard against prohibiting animals in circuses. They argue that the animals that were in the circuses at the time would be slaughtered or abandoned, so their logic was allowing more and more years of animals suffering inside the circuses. What? Yes, the change definitely hurt, but it was possible both to fight against their slaughter and abandonment, and to get rid of that abuse forever. If we decrease in population, of course it will be difficult, but we can find ways to face the difficulties while we get into a better system. We cannot preserve capitalism just because we are afraid of hard times, when capitalism itself is hurting us.
The extinction one is different. We won’t get to that point, but even if we did, it would be a free decision of humanity that is hurting no one else. That’s the intuition they probably have: that those humans would be hurting the ones that do not exist yet, but I already commented about that reasoning. I don’t think there’s harm against the non-existant. Our end is possibly inevitable because the habitable Universe seems to have an end. If we decide to fight it, that’s okay as long as we do it ethically. But if we collectively decide to end it all, I respect it as long as it’s done ethically too. Anyway, as I said, this is mere imagination as I do not see humanity (in the big numbers we now are) never ever choosing this path together. We will be here for some time.
Unless you’re both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that’s not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a “temporary antinatalist”.
Try Marvel Rivals (out on December 6th). It reminded me of OW1, but also OW2, of course.