Bay 12 Games Forum

By the way, the investigation turned up nothing.

Just to check, but you do realize that article is not saying that, right?

Yeaaah, there was a fairly domesticated deer in my area at one point. Someone had got it young and basically raised it. Very friendly, totes let you pet it.

It eventually got turned into venison. Turns out getting deer used to humans gets deer eaten.

Any language you don't understand is going to look like a jumble of random letters.

Eehh, not necessarily. I've only noticed a few (that still use this alphabet, anyway) that really look particularly random or jumbled. Takes a bit more than just not being able to understand the meaning, heh.

... accent marks and letter combinations you basically never see in english are definitely contributors, though. Some things look like words or sentences you don't understand. Other things look like the alphabet just had a stroke and died on your carpet.

N... not everyone. Pretty regularly see folks acknowledge games they don't like as good, or ones they do as bad. Certainly have often enough m'self.

Also you probably want to re-read what saph was actually writing about puzzles. The thing was a counterargument against the proposition that puzzles with a single solution are mostly lazy design. Not some kind of statement that puzzles with multiple solutions are bad.

Watched someone playing breath of the wild for the first time. Watched them try to hunt boars in one of the grassland areas... with fire arrows. They had previously used a bomb one, and seemed to be expecting similar behavior. Didn't have commentary or face cam, but just from how they moved link was terribly amusing. That pause after the arrow hit. The longer one watching a patch of grass and the boar ignite. The slow circle around the circle of burning grassland. The puff of smoke as the boar's meat incinerated, just as the fire was burning out. The moment or two the player spent running around the patch of burnt land, obviously looking for stuff the boar might have dropped... stuff the fire turned to ash. That final pause, standing in a small field of blackened ground, before heading away.

It made me laugh, today.

CBA to find the link, but on youtube it's a vid title that ends with 24 hour play through stream, with a playtime of 7:28:02, around four hours and forty five minutes in.

No, you're right, the specifics don't matter, but the generalities damn sure do. There's no presumption that a GOP voter is by default hostile to LGBT interests. Maybe they'd rather not be, but it doesn't change that they are. There'd be presumption if I were to claim they all want criminal sodomy laws or some shit enforced, or that they'd push the issue even in the face of other considerations. But that they're willing to support anti-LGBT policy and platforms is not something that can be questioned -- the closest you could get to it is if they're voting for lower level politicians that are actually voting and pushing stances counter to the GOP stance on the subject (or at least goddamn abstaining), or at the very lowest amount of effort (assuming it won't get them hospitalized or killed, anyway) openly speaking against it and pushing for what change they can within the party.

Similarly, there would not be presumption to claim a green voter is willing to support nontraditional medicine and anti-GMO sentiment. There would be for the healing crystal or DNA thing in particular, but that and the state of things with the GOP and LGBT issues are significantly different things (though the state of things with the greens and anti-GMO sentiment is less so). It's entirely possible that the voter has reasons they think as sufficient to excuse it, or that they'll claim they're opposed on an ideological level or whathaveyou, but some things you can't really divorce yourself from. Some shit you own when you cover yourself in it whether you want to or not. Doesn't mean you're necessarily a bad person or something', and gods know there can be extenuating circumstances, but it's still shit you've put yourself behind and to say you didn't is a flat bloody lie.

You would have been right to criticize a dem voter for supporting the surveillance state when we voted obama, basically. That is absolutely what we did, for whatever reason, and we've harangued ourselves a fair amount for it, since. Similarly, those of us who voted for lower level politicians that supported him on those issues would be someone you could call out. You might have less grounds given there's not much in this country of political note that's not, but you'd still be making an accurate statement. Maybe more if there's significant conflict within the party('s voting habits). But that's still an issue you could take. _{Least assuming you didn't vote GOP, or most of the other American political parties, heh.}

Don't recall where I said anything about writing people off, though. Just that some associations do indeed make some things said about the folks associated not an assumption. Hell, the thing with the GOP's base and its support for anti-lgbt sentiment is to figure out what's causing it, and how to stop it, not write them off as whatever the blazes.

Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name. Various presbyterian denominations do indeed vary wildly, but they either share certain core concepts nevertheless or they're lying about their beliefs in one way or another by claiming the name. You do want to judge people individually, but at the same time you don't get to claim association with something and then avoid scrutiny for what your claimed group is doing. You can't claim to not be anti-LGBT and be voting republican, ferex (though you may be able to be voting conservative, so long as whatever party or individual you're voting for isn't voting lockstep with the GOP). However strongly you say the former, the latter puts it to lie. With some sorts of association, certain things stop being assumption, and denial by the person associating starts being a lie, regardless of what the individual has told others, or even themself, what they believe.

Religion's a fair bit more muddy than most things political, though. Funding and political support and whatnot paints you, but by and large much of what's related to religion functionally doesn't matter outside your head, holy texts can and have been twisted to invalidate any particular belief associated with them, and so many bloody people claim the top level names they're effectively meaningless -- muslim, ferex, may mean you see the qur'an as a holy text and claim belief in a specific holy figure or two, but how you or your denomination interpret the former or view the latter is pretty much entirely up in the air.

You still have metaphorical problems (so far as wanting to claim you approach others in a sort of tabula rasa state) when you're claiming a specific denomination -- "christian" says basically jack all about your beliefs, but "baptist" or whatev' says quite a bit more -- or talking about a specific region, but it's a lot less necessarily clear, and there's a lot more wiggle room, with the occasional exception. LRA says a hell of a lot more than, say, catholic, heh. Philosophy or ideology is about in the same spot, really, though  those those tend to not splinter into a dozen things fighting over the same name quite so regularly.

There's also a fair bit of difference between talking about an individual member of a group and the group itself. Lot less of the things stated about the latter can be claimed to be assumptions. A criticism of a group you associate isn't necessarily a criticism of you, after all. Unless you're displaying or supporting whatever is being criticized, anyway.

... do wish the bloody denominations would name themselves more clearly, though. Know why they do it (wanting to claim authority over a certain title, since new denominations tend to form due to schisms within a particular denomination), but good gods does it make things more annoying.

Stuff kemco publishes kinda' trends towards that, dek. I'm still not sure how intentional it is, heh.

... also, if you haven't seen it already, and it doesn't cycle out or somethin'. Other restaurant, second floor, right side. Dude and his daughter. Think I actually mentioned in earlier in the thread, but seeing it in the wild is good, too