KeriKitty (They(/It))
Meep :3
They/Them, also “It” when a critter I like is being cute ior affectionate about it :3
Very cute, but also weird and sometimes kinda sharp
Hates this world, hates being stuck in it. Needs rescuing, needs understanding. Not happening. Only misery and extension of said misery happening.
- 0 Posts
- 27 Comments
Forced reading used to be a thing when I was in school 🤔 I assume now it’s just movies all day with the occasional book burning as a treat. Maybe throw some Kindles full of leaded solder or something onto the fire, get some nice toxins in the air for the kids to breathe. Great, now I’m grumpy and depressed. 😞
Never gonna accept that I2P and Freenet and Tor-as-darknet (and whatever else) get so little attention. We managed to get Lemmy to be a thing but most of us just kinda hope clearnet sites on corporate systems and networks stay up instead of going for alternative networks that may be harder to control? Bleh.
Idunno where you got the idea that I’m for slurs or against disabled people but it’s kinda insulting, especially when you took “sometimes said as a derogatory word” and ran it like it’s the whole point or the article over the complaint that got its own paragraph (the Pulp Fiction bit) and shared the same sentence the disability bit is in, or the one that got the whole rest of the article (that it’s vaguely unprofessional). In fact I’m getting more irked every time I go look for evidence that I’ve misinterpreted it. Reading through a couple crap anecdotes to one that actually says something, we get a VP smirking at the name, which makes me wonder whether that person’s just a hateful prick smirking at a disability term or one of the many who giggle at any reference to anything associated with sex. The other three are just “some people dislike the name.” I conclude that the article does not take issue primarily with the name being an abusive term and wonder why you’d say that.
I muchly dislike careless use of abusive terms (I’ve probably got an essay or two ranting over the usage (and existence) of “crazy” and “insane,” for example) so I really don’t disagree that abusive terms should be treated much more seriously.
My entire point was that the author seems to be throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks, not seriously worrying some spooky scary BDSM critter (hi, it’s me :3 ) is gonna tie them up (of course not, the ropes are for me :3 ), nor that anyone’s getting bullied by the tool’s name or it’s irritating old wounds or really anything at all. I don’t think they’re taking any of this seriously. If the term’s abusive in a way that can’t be neutralized by taking it from abusers and making it something else (an arguably valid thing to do) then that’s worth actual serious discussion and not just part of one sentence in a six-page essay.
tl;dr: The article barely even mentions anything about disability and, I think, does so more as an excuse for itself than out of any serious concern for anyone. My complaint/point is, to be clear, exclusively that the article is crap and not that abusive terminology is okay. The article has failed to demonstrate any actual problem with the name itself other than handwavey “some people say” that it’s vaguely unprofessional.
This really isn’t the article it wishes it were :-\ It kinda reeks of “I’ve picked a thing I want to argue and now I’m going to make up an argument for it” down to admitting that good sources aren’t available (which makes me wonder whether there are no good sources at all or just no good sources that support the author’s argument).
Bonus unpoints for the BDSM reference, just because I hate seeing that term held up as a negative or scary kind of thing and I feel like and/or choose to believe that’s the point in such an unprofessional article, rather than simply meaning “Look, it means sex stuff and that’s unprofessional.” So there. Nyeh! 😝
Also, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone who actually used or contributed to the GIMP (or intended to) complain about the name. I’m interested in seeing some actual data on that, if there is any. Personally I wouldn’t particularly mind a name change but I can’t say whether it’d get more attention and interest than it’d lose to irritating people accustomed to the current one.
There are mods for the first to make it more blaster-friendly! The impression I get is that blasters are much more effective in t he second game and are, it’s claimed (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1606481748), viable even for Hard playthroughs.
I’m playing on Normal; it’s mostly reasonably easy. Paying a bit more attention to keeping my defences in order would probably serve me well but I’ve not hit any walls or anything like that.
Maybe it works if read as “games made by boomers?” … Yeah I have no idea how old anyone was/is. Time and I don’t really get along 🤷
Also, going along with a thing I’ve been seeing in these comments, I’m idly curious as to whether anyone who isn’t a Boomer cares about use/misuse/abuse of the term “Boomer” 🤔
Ooo, that’s interesting. I was looking at “Deery clarified that the game will be pulled in the next 60 days.” and thought that meant the publisher had exclusive distribution rights and was choosing to destroy the thing. From that site it looks like your interpretation is correct, which is good! Sometimes it’s good to be wrong 😅
not gonna unseethe the corps, though
I’ve read it all
Hero! <3 Thanks for digesting this for me/us :3 Also your avatar is friggin’ adorable ^.^
I don’t really have anything to add, though. Better access controls seems sensible; grooming and trafficking are claims easily and often made (maybe they shouldn’t be, hm!) and hopefully are just BS.
Edited to fix my ^.^-face :3
Okay, this article thing is like three million pages long; is there actually any child abuse content being thrown at people? Is there any way to see this stuff without being into it? I don’t understand how this is suddenly a problem now if it’s like, you’re walking around your virtual neighbourhood and BAM, CSAM in your face! Kinda seems like somebody would’ve noticed before now so I’m wondering if there’s some clarification I missed by not reading past the first couple of pages.
Accused of:
-Enabling imaginary CSAM involving no children to “flourish” (?) in their virtual houses
-Ignoring that someone considers their virtual play only involving adults to be disgusting
-Creating a deeply toxic working environment within a company
One of these things is most definitely a problem if true!
Also not quite convinced the full article doesn’t have other problems. It has a smell.
Isn’t that what sca- uhh, I mean super legit game devs normally do? Suddenly the scope was neeeever that big! You just think you remember all’ those claims that are still visible! No one actually said things you can prove they did!
I feel like this has happened numerous times already and somehow it surprises people every time. Like, there are channels on YouTube that only cover this sort of thing and have days of content.
There’s so much in place to keep people from getting help but paying people to shoot us and not even bother to make up their own lies about it, no problem!
What the fuck.