I like hard games. I also sympathize with the above article’s argument about the setting descriptions themselves. I also think the right way to play a game is whatever is most enjoyable for the individual player.

There’s an immersion problem even before you get to exploitation, or the reasonable fear of exploitation ruining the experience as this article describes. I don’t think there’s a right way to do microtransactions, because being presented with a real world financial decisions in the middle of playing a game takes me…

Venom is good? Where should she have stopped? What’s the explanation? I’m having trouble separating the sincerity from the sarcasm here because I only just looked up “hotep” on urban dictionary.

Why, because it’s incoherent? I’m sure there was a better way of saying what I was trying to say. I think the left has consistently failed to set the debate on their own terms, and when they did set the terms, they shot themselves in the foot with a narrative about “choice” that implicitly limited reproductive rights…

I just want to hear better, less reactive arguments that don’t begin and end with checking a box for voters whose vote can change on that single issue. My problem isn’t with “Safe, legal and rare” as a policy goal. It basically comes down to the difference between a message of compromise which concedes some validity…

A lot of liberals are absolutists about it. I don’t think Democrats have been absolutists, because democrats are democrats. The safe, legal and rare thing is just weak and evasive. I’m not talking about trying to make the issue as inoffensive as possible, I’m not talking about making concessions. “Safe, legal and…

How pro-life? Voting records pro-life? If you’re talking about those “privately pro-life, politically pro-choice democrats,” lemme say this: abortion rights are very important, but the debate is manufactured. Its terms have been set by the right, and the left has done a great job of walking into the right’s…

Maybe that’s because there isn’t a whole lot to discuss here. This isn’t the frontline of a debate on free speech, although it’s very concerning, and much more concerning than someone being arrested for hate speech. It’s just that no one that frequents Jezebel is going to argue over this. It’s fucked up. Duh. No one h…

If it was my son dead I would want them publicly decapitated, but that’s why we try for a fair and impartial system, sometimes. The retributive desires of victims, their families, and the public should be but one factor in determining what punishment would produce the greatest benefit to society at the lowest cost,…

Do you believe murder always warrants life in prison? Looking at another one of your comments, I’m guessing not. Personal comfort level with a form or degree of punishment should not determine the form or degree punishment—preventing the harm that offended you should be. “Change the laws?” These determinations come…

I don’t entirely agree, but the “juxtaposition” one pissed me off, because it really isn’t clear without context whether she’s using the word correctly.

I think you have no clue how much thought goes into selecting these “common phrases,” or how much power and influence they have. You want substantive political action? People are mobilized by narrative, and political narratives are written by subtle implication—it’s far easier to unite people behind shared biases and…

“This single incident and incidents like it, which I will only vaguely evoke here,  potentially justify characterizing all who share a certain skintone as having immoral character.” Right, okay then.  

I don’t and have never believed in God, but...I see religious faith as something akin to consuming art. It’s choosing to be affected. Belief in God is, to me, like a thought experiment; I chew on the concept, the narrative, of existence having a benevolent design, and this allows me to perceive reality in a more…

And the problem of retributive justice is not just that it’s an obstacle to solving the problem that initiated the moral judgment. It is hardly always clear just what sensibility is being offended to the possessor of a retributive sentiment, because retribution is itself a reaction and the follow through, rather than…

To frame it differently: We should not need to dehumanize people in order to pass moral judgment on them, or more appropriately, their actions. But dehumanization and animus towards the actor are exactly what people think of as their moral judgment. When we rely on retributive instinct to act as our moral compass, we …

I find it unlikely that a person could reasonably believe that every person in an angry mob individually presented a risk of serious bodily injury or death, such that deadly force could be legally justified/excused against any one of them. Unless they all gathered with the intent of murdering you, and you can discern…

Yup

The distinction is that bump fire stocks aren’t practically useful in any scenario besides causing mass death in a dense crowd of unarmed civilians. Auto fire generally isn’t very accurate, but bump stock auto fire is basically useless for combat. Gun rights absolutists care about being able to own anything and…

I don’t think that’s an accurate framing of the issue. I’m definitely talking past conservatives with poor critical thinking skills who treat the second amendment like the word of god. But the Second Amendment doesn’t stand on it’s own authority, and it’s not a divine command. It’s a law. Many or most conservatives…