Can you recommend me a starting point? For someone who has no experience with these games, or any Japanese games besides Soulsgames and RE4 remake.

Feel free to roast me in the process.

There’s this guy, his name is Nathan. I think he could help you. He graduated from business school with really good grades.

I found this fact particularly fun. thanks for sending me down a lil rabbit hole.

I think totally. 100%. If Wikipedia is to be believed

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of people that perceives themselves to be different from other groups based on shared attributes. These attributes include having a common language, culture, common sets of ancestry, traditions, society, religion, history, or social treatment.[1][2] The term ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism. It is also used interchangeably with race.

Then I think that your ethnicity could be based on the internet communities you exist in.

Its directly related to things like the slow dissolution dissolving of regional accents we see due to the internet and the general melting, appropriation, and reappropriation of cultural aspects we see facilitated by the internet.

I think it worked great! I figured it was something like that. Cool project, I’m interested to see what else you can do with it

This is sick. What is the thing in the foreground on the left? vegetation?

I can explain what’s going through my head for you. I downvoted you because your purely factual statement seems to completely miss and is entirely irrelevant to my point – that coercing a child to declare themselves an adult in the eyes of a particular social group, to declare that they have the agency to consider such a thing that is supposed to be a LIFE LONG decision, is straight up wrong.

Doesn’t matter if it has been in place for a century, if age 13 is an outlier, or if you think 16 is old enough because that’s when you had to do it. It’s whack, and your justification is whack. I downvoted you instead of engaging because most of the time it’s not worth entertaining someone who justifies the cult I was indoctrinated into as a child, from which I had to spend many years deconstructing the hate for others – often the lowliest groups of individuals – that Catholicism had fomented in my child and adolescent heart. Forgive my harshness, but I’m not going to act like this thing that made me into a spiteful hateful kid – towards the exact groups of people that Jesus tells us to love the most – is a good thing.

It’s a constant problem because its a cult that wants to protect its cult members. It finds no issue with indoctrinating kids, to the point where nobody batted an eye when they recently (like, in the past 10 years) decreased the age at which children go through the sacrament of Confirmation. The same sacrament that is meant to affirm your adulthood in the church, where you say, “I may have been told to practice this by my parents before, but now I’m an adult now and choose to practice it of my own volition.”

They do this when children are thirteen years old. Thirteen.

When I was fifteen I did not have the capacity to make this decision for myself. Now I have to live with the fact I’m on a list somewhere as an adult in the church. The Catholic Church is an evil institution that uses trauma for the purpose of coercion.

Hey, no need to apologize! I totally get it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, even with your cynicism :) I agree, any altruistic behavior fits within this context of evolutionary behavior and is ultimately driven by the need for individuals to survive long enough to reproductive age. To be honest, I’m actually not sure where we disagree. I think, maybe, we are interpreting Kropotkin differently. To continue with the idea about horses – I think the problem with your posit (horses protecting their young) is that it isn’t only the horses who have offspring who form the circle, but also horses who don’t have offspring. This might sound like I’m saying, “See, since even the horses that do not have offspring join the protective ring, we see that altruism occurs in nature,” but as you pointed out, this too is an evolutionarily driven behavior. It’s not necessarily selfish in the eyes of the individual (I don’t think), but it’s an urge, driven by generations and generations of horses who exist on a spectrum from least social (do not participate in the circle) to most social (participate in the circle, and many more social activities), in which those horses that are more socially participative are more likely to reach adulthood and reproduction.

I can’t remember if Kropotkin addresses the violence that happens in the natural world, but I’m pretty sure he reconciles it. I don’t think he outright denies competition in Mutual Aid, even though I can see how you come to that conclusion with that passage. I agree with you, it is easy to look at opposing examples of competition rather than cooperation in the natural world, even among the same species. Especially when it comes down to resource scarcity – then you start seeing less cooperative behavior. I think Kropotkin’s point is not to deny that competition exists, but to push against the idea that that is the only thing that exists. The way I understand it, he was writing in a post-Darwin time, when the scientific community was taking Darwin’s ideas and applying them to society with Social Darwinism – survival of the fittest not only in nature but in social life, as well. So instead of a “noble savage” kinda idea, where Kropotkin is saying “everything in nature is peaches and roses,” he is more saying, “look at all this cooperation in nature that is being ignored by the ‘survival of the fittest’ camp.” Anyways, that’s how I read the book – but it’s not really captured in that single quote.

Funnily enough, your exact example with ants is one Kropotkin uses in Mutual Aid! He basically goes along the evolutionary ladder, from least complex organisms to most (although, beginning with insects I’m pretty sure) and shows the cooperation within various species, not to deny the existence of competition, but to show that it isn’t the only, or even the most, important force in evolution.

I guess my one last point is illustrated like this: if competition for resources were the primary force driving evolution, wouldn’t we see a continuing trend of individuals in a species with more and more physical strength, brutishness, competitive nature, and rejection of cooperation? In other words, wouldn’t we see a phasing out of cooperative behavior in favor of individual antagonisms and competition for resources? Here I’m thinking of my house cats – we’re in the process of introducing them, at the moment, and managing their anxieties about the other. Even though Bella is very territorial, each day she is showing more and more signs of acceptance of Suzie – through cat language of course – slow blinking, flopping on her side, chirping when she walks up to her. If competition where the only, or the most important driver of evolution, I’m not sure we would see this kind of behavior from Bella – I’m not even sure these cat-signs of flopping slow-blinking, chirping, would exist! Of course, they occur with more frequency as she slowly realizes resources are not scarce, that she can coexist with this other cat Suzie, and that she’ll get treats each time she has a positive interaction ;)

Anyways, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’m curious to hear what you think, it’s been fun chatting. I think even if you’re skeptical of Kropotkin from that passage, it’s still worth reading the book in whole. You probably wouldn’t find that you agree with everything, or even most, but at the very least, I think it’d be an interesting insight into how a person thought post-Darwin, pre-WW1.

I came back to see if you were still making a fool of yourself on this topic, and lo-and-behold you’re threatening to ban users for calling your comments dumb. You deserve to be called out on this one. Have a good day.

givesome, I’m really disappointed with you in this comment section. Ban me if you want, but you really are embarrassing yourself here, not only with your dumb comments, but now threatening to ban someone for calling you out. It seems like you made this post just to get in a bunch of fights with users, only to threaten to ban them when they push back? Like cmon dude. Really, really not cool.

I think you have some confusion with the word fork. You don’t “fork away” from a lemmy instance – instances are their own thing. You can defederate from them, but that’s not forking. Forking is really only in the context of the code – its when you copy a codebase and change it in whatever way you see fit, so a fork of Lemmy would not be lemmy.

That thread has a couple mentions of forks of Lemmy, like piefed and mbin, but there is so much non-technical conversation that its really not about creating forks of lemmy. I think what you’re trying to say is that people want to decrease their reliance (don’t want to donate to, really) the lemmy devs, who also are the lemmy.ml maintainers, who have pro-CCP views. I mean, you can correct me if I’m wrong there. Really most of that thread is discussion of politics.

But the thing is, you don’t have to support them. You don’t have to donate, and if you’re really upset that they are adding a donate button, you can move to another activitypub platform like piefed or mbin or whatever. I mean, you probably should be doing that since you seem so invested in this issue. It’d definitely be more effective protest – because the lemmy devs aren’t going to be ousted or anything like that. Lemmy is their project. The best thing you can do is move to a fork of lemmy. That’s the whole beauty of open source – if you don’t like it, there is a fork. If there’s no fork, you can fork it yourself (but that’s work).

But there’s not much you can do to influence the direction of lemmy as a codebase, and if the devs wretched political opinions outweigh the usefulness of the platform for you, you should just switch platforms. It’d be a bummer to lose your comment history, your moderator status, or whatever, but why would you care about that stuff if it contributes to something that is owned by some tankies you hate?

Idk, maybe something to think about. There are just a lot of avenues built into open-source software, and into the decentralized nature of the fediverse, that allow you an off-ramp. But sounding the alarm on a yearly donate button won’t influence the direction of lemmy because those two devs are in complete control of the codebase.

Hell, I’m looking at mbin now. kinda enticing…hmmmmmm…lol

Edit: Hmm hold on, it sounds like piefed and mbin are not forks, but were developed independently of lemmy

Yep, lots of people have been wanting to fork.

Hm? You make it sound like the devs are blocking that from happening, and that there’s all this chatter about it, but people cant decide – But that’s not how forking works. There’s no “people want to fork, but they just cant decide how to proceed, or they’re being blocked from doing it, or there’s been all this talk about forking, whatever whatever.” Like usually it’s not an all or nothing, it’s not a thing everyone has to discuss, “we gotta fork and every instance migrate over to this other codebase.” Anyone can just fork it and self host it. I know you didn’t say exactly those words, but it kinda sounds like you don’t really know much about what you’re saying, sorry to say :/ Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not an open source dev, just an admin. But idk dude, it sounds like you have a misunderstanding about the big picture of open-source development.

The problem is maintenance, as mentioned below, but I guess I’m more curious about the federative implications of forking lemmy and running your own fork – is it feasible? Maybe someone else could answer

Maybe a stupid question, couldn’t someone just fork it and remove this?

I enjoy Jared Henderson. Frustrated there’s nothing about free software movement anywhere in this video

When i was a kid, my grandma lived with us. She’d listen to this piece of garbage non-stop. She had me parroting the drivel he spouted. Nothing could make me forgive this dude for poisoning her mind, and nothing will make me forget how she helped make me into a hateful little kid. Glad they’re both dead, only hoping my own mother doesn’t take up the mantle with my nieces and nephews. She does not understand the harm and the trauma she perpetuates.

I don’t really agree, but I do understand where you’re coming from. I do think you’re right in pointing out that all these behaviors give the individual a more likely chance to survive, but I also think that is exactly Kropotkin’s point. That these social behaviors were naturally selected, the individuals who displayed them were more likely to survive.

But where I disagree is in the fact that the individuals themselves aren’t consciously thinking, “this is what will give me, an individual, the best chance to survive.” You see what I mean? For example, the horses forming a circle around the young to defend from wolves – they’re not thinking, “I need to protect myself.” They have an instinct to protect the young, so the young go in the center. If an adult were purely individualistic, it would enter the circle, itself, right? Or if my neighbors house is on fire, what’s most advantageous for me as an individual is to run away, but I feel compelled to yell for help. Or kittens – wouldn’t they be better off as individuals if they just killed off their siblings, so that they could have a full mouth? But no, being raised with other young kittens allows them to learn to hunt through play, to groom themselves, and to learn socialization tactics and reading body language, which further increases their chances of survival when encountering other cats as adults.

So yeah, you’re totally right in a sense, animals act in these ways because their ancestors passed on the genes that predisposed them to acting this way, and those behaviors make them more likely to survive because they (the behaviors) made their ancestors more likely to survive. See what I’m getting at? Kropotkin’s point is that it is evolutionarily advantageous to engage in social activity and cooperation.

I totally buy it, personally. You ever think about why we blush involuntarily? Or why we feel so wretched when we think we haven’t been accepted socially? Why it feels good to just help someone, or when we wince when we see someone else in pain? We’re social animals, built to socialize. I mean, we all speak a language! We naturally are compelled to talk baby-talk at babies. We touch each other, even in platonic, non sexual ways. These social behaviors are rewarded because they helped us survive, yes, but we don’t think about them as actions we take to increase our chance of survival. We do them because they feel good, because they’re supposed to.

I think learning anything new is like this, yknow? No pain no gain, as they say.

Thanks unruffled. That passage from Kropotkin really moved me when I first read it. atro really struggled with rule 1. Hope your day goes good!

Hey LibertyLiz. Nothing to add, just wanted to say hi. I enjoy seeing your name pop up spitting truth. Hope you’re doing good!