So that is engineering. Is this character an engineer with knowledge of magic, physics and mechanics?
It’s fine and easy for a player to think in term of game mechanics. But the actual process is not so goofy. And the character is not the player. The dice decide after that.
While this is somewhat true, in all of the west there are only 3 groups currently : liberals, fascists and leftists.
Liberals are a diverse group, ranging from socio-democrat and liberal green parties to libertarian who leans on fascism.
Fascists are all the brands of conservatives who leverage racism, authoritarianism and nationalism.
Leftists are basically the groups opposed to both fascism and liberalism.
Those are 3 objective groups. They are the groups that determine how likely they will cooperate or oppose each other, or how elections will turn.
Some parties will be a bit in between, but that’s merely political communication. In practice a group that promote itself as a middle group is actually leaning right. This means that “leftist liberals” (who range from some green parties and movements to the socio-democrats) will always pick liberals if they must choose between them and the left. Likewise, conservatives and libertariens are leaning toward fascism when given the choice.
The political spectrum is radicalised and triparted. You can deny this model and blur the information, but it usually means that you are leaning more to the right than you are pretending.
Are a anarcho-capitalists considered anarchists here?
Not my fault if liberals are blind to fascism since forever, and fighting the left instead. Like a fucking nazi is in the US government but liberals are still doing propaganda about tiananmen. They’re collaborators if you ask me.
Liberals are always the first to come to defend the fascists! It’s always funny to see. An ironic kind of funny at least.
Ceos being scared for their life is a notable change IMO. Surveillance and repression are as usual.
That’s not what can be understood from a comment that simply condemn violence with one example though. I mostly agree with you otherwise.
But I am starting to change my mind recently with a simple parallel : strike is a kind of violence with a company, and it works very well. A strike in a single company can have positive effects for the people who work there. A global strike can have positive effects for everyone.
I am starting to think that physical violence may have the same property : of course an organised revolution is the best. But in the mean time, I don’t think assassinating a CEO is useless. I’m not saying it’s what we should do, at least not to this day. But I am wondering: did the last such event had positive or negative effects?
You’ll soon see what fascists do with violence. In an idealistic world, pacifism is fine. But in reality the threat of violence is still the only thing that can prevent violence from the opposing side.
Violence has been used to shut down leftist for decades now. Pacifism did nothing to prevent capitalism from degenerating. At some point one need to accept the reality.
That’s a lie. Capitalists will only make compromises if their lives (directly or figuratively) is in danger. That’s what History demonstrates.
Right now they’re so comfortable with power and propaganda that they’d rather make fascism happen.
Violence is the only language they understand. I’m not talking about everyone here, I’m talking about the capitalist overlords. They’re ruthless monsters who only understands vital threat to their way of life or their life directly.
Calling US leftists extremists is the funniest joke I’ve read today!
Truth is liberals are much more extremists than most leftists. At some point they will need to realise it and take responsibility for the shit they did for so long.
The liberals have to do their mea culpa, not the left. Right now it will soon be a matter of choosing a side : humanism or fascism. Until now the liberals always chose fascism and called the leftists dangerous extremists.
Choose a side liberals. You made the world what it is today. And you’re now blaming the leftists and asking them to support your insanity. That’s not how it works. Leftists know which side they are fighting for, and they will suffer the consequences. What about you liberals?
You know, if leberals wanted the support of the leftists, they try something called compromises. But the only compromises they’re ready to do is with the fascists unfortunately, which the leftists will never support.
So no, the leftists didn’t refuse to make compromises. The liberals did, with the left, because they actually accepted all the compromises with the fascists. And act now surprised that fascism is taking over.
Liberals are spoiled children incapable of taking accountability for their actions.
The thing is that in a polarised world you support one side or the other, and the sides are the US and China. US is certainly not better deserving support than China, but liberals will call tankie anyone who support China in any way, shape or form. For a liberal it’s completely inacceptable to say that China is doing anything better than the US.
That’s in theory. In practice it’s only used by liberals to insult leftist when they criticise the US or liberalism.
Exactly this! I’ve never seen the term used by anyone but liberals to taunt, attack or divert a debate.
There is no chance it wasn’t meant to be an open world. The witcher 3 was a very successful open world they made.
Also, CP77 actually is in the style of elden ring that was praised for it, but CP77 came long before it. Most critiques of CP77 missed that part because the game doesn’t throw it at your face.
But then the octopus would be able to open the jar.
Well, if capitalism could tolerate true journalism, journalists would be paid like managers.
I wish it was, but it isn’t. It usually about them being able to ban you from playing for whatever reason they deem worthy.
I am not sure it would be any good. Basically it would mean the meta spells would be counterable like before, so the characters have an option to take less useful or more niche spells to avoid a counterspell.
But in practice counterspell is already constrained by memory slots, spellslots and actions (it takes a bonus action, which there is only one per turn), and also range and vision. It also takes identifying the spell to not waste your counterspell on something useless.
So I’m not sure what the intent could be with this. A wizard would basically be required to take fireball if only to counter it, and avoid using it against another wizard. It feels to me that it would decrease the possibilities, not increase them.