a lil bee 🐝

I really wish it did, but the constitution does not contain that phrase. It does contain “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (the establishment clause) but “separation of church and state” comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.

GFYDL and RIP Trevor. I still miss Newsboyz and would have loved to hear his takes on the queen dying, the AI craze… Ugh.

Yay, thank you!!

That’s certainly a good explanation, but it really calls into question the viability of a sub like this. On reddit, the engaged folks drown it out and mostly keep the unpopular opinions intact. This and the super highly-upvoted political stuff just makes it look like this sub has no purpose at all.

I don’t agree, but thanks for posting an actually unpopular opinion. Based on the voting, this sub should just get renamed to popularopinion and be done with it.

I was wondering why the redlib frontends stopped working today. Oh well, probably for the best this way.

I agree. I’ve played a few matches of 2142(?) over the time since it’s been released and it’s gotten to an okay state. I know a lot of different people raged at various points of them, but I had tons of fun with the dev cycles of 4/1/V. They were just fun at the core, even when DICE was doing something dumb with the loop messed up a weapon or whatever. This one just falls flat after a few matches.

I would be happy just having a playable battlefield game guys…

Oh, oh! I have a more recent example of a cringy militant atheist now, do you need a link? Here ya go.

Totally agree, thanks to you as well!

I’m with you that the primary purpose of this bill is to chill speech. It could have been useful in less charged times but there is zero possibility of passing anything like this without the current zeitgeist interfering in either direction. Regardless, I just cannot agree with your interpretation here. In the current landscape, the hypothetical arguments you presented don’t follow logic that a court would follow.

Accusing Israel of apartheid is not the same as the wording of the text, which is to assert that the existence of Israel itself is racist. Saying Israel did something that Nazi Germany did is not drawing a comparison in the same way that me saying you breathe air is not comparing you to Hitler. I would have to assert “you are like Hitler because you breathe air like he did” to draw a comparison.

I also cannot get down with “they said ‘but not limited to’ so it could literally be anything”. That’s standard boilerplate stuff that is only saying the definition cannot explicitly list every example of antisemitic behavior. It’s not meant to stretch the definition out.

Frankly, I think this bill is dumb. It’s obviously meant as a deterrent for pro-Palestinian voices. The danger in this bill will be in the implementation and enforcement. However, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the definition of antisemitism used by the bill.

Sorry, that “explicit” was referring to another page from the same source I saw referenced elsewhere in regards to this bill. I’ll retract that unless I can find it again.

Are the legal experts saying your examples above would be a violation? Do you have a link to that? If you are referring to the linked article, I’m not sure I’m seeing these two examples listed. Again, just want to emphasize I’m with yall on the bill here. I just want to actually understand and discuss the limits that might be applied here.

I don’t believe it would be, actually? Both of your examples do not resemble any of the listed sub-items. Holding all Jewish people responsible for those items would be antisemitic, but they do also explicitly mention that any criticism that could be leveled at another state is valid. Comparing them to the Nazis is a no go, but it sounds as if you can accuse the state of Israel of apartheid or genocide and that is still not antisemitism under this bill.

To be clear, I am opposed to this law and believe it will have a chilling effect on speech. I just don’t think your examples above would be in violation.

I would say that it aligns with a broad view of conservatives but not so much the conservative tradition in America, which has historically been fairly libertarian in their approach to the market. Regardless your reply makes sense, so I appreciate it. Sounds like one of those rare items of alignment between our political factions!

I guess my question to the OP and any other conservatives here (which I am not, to be up front) is: why is this something you want to solve? I don’t see how regulating this would be in line with conservative principles at all. Wouldn’t the conservative approach to be trusting the free market to eventually right any wrongs brought about?

It’ll depend on how much influence he has. He consulted on Elden Ring and I think his touch can be felt in the fucked up family dynamics of the story there, but he was limited in involvement. I don’t think GRRM will be the limiting factor here anyway.

I’ll set aside the theme and tackle the format instead. Is there really an audience for MMORPGs anymore? It was a deadly space to enter when WoW was in its prime and it’s only gotten harder. I’m not so sure the MMORPG even “died” as much as slowly diffused into every other genre as live-service capabilities began to spin up. These massive worlds where everyone shares the same story just don’t feel right without a strong ludonarrative dissonance, as opposed to most games that make you the exclusive hero. Sandbox MMOs, on the flip side, rarely have any staying power or purpose. It’s just a really hard design space, in my opinion, when other genres now have all the same benefits of letting you seamlessly play with strangers or friends en masse, without the limitations or side effects of having a single shared world.

Rambling thoughts for discussion. Also I love MMORPGs, to be clear. I just wouldn’t want to be in the business of making one after about 2010.

Which, to be fair, absolutely puts them hand in hand with the average Linux fan

I hope that gets to the point where major players are able and willing to use it. I only have so much sway with my clients when it comes to tooling choice and open source options can be hard to sell to some enterprises until they hit a certain proliferation point.

Oh christ, there goes Terraform… That really sucks.