I decree an Internet Statute of Limitations.

Any attempted retroactive reframing more than five years after the original creates a new character instead of retroactively altering the old.

Eventually. But "eventually" is not necessarily within my lifetime, or yours.

There are an awful lot of critical components in this house of cards of ours.

"next"?

Have you seen the field of statistics lately?

They are incapable of building anything that would last, even with all the advantages in the world.

Doesn't mean they can't destroy everything else in the process of cascade-failing, though.

a.k.a. "we can do anything as long as we do it in small steps and go 'whoops a bug' and go off and do other things until it's not in the public eye anymore if anyone calls us out on it"

I'm not going to read a ten chapter splurging blog.

Ah, the classic "this issue is complex so I'm going to offer the ultimatum of either a) oversimplify it to the point I can strawman or b) say I'm right".

The issue is complex. Saying "don't be complex" does not help simplify the matter, unfortunately.

Freedom of speech isn't limited by your definition of rational discussion.

I absolutely agree; nothing I said there said that.

I have no issues with someone holding discussion - regardless of if I consider it rational.

I have every issue with someone actively trying to prevent rational discussion.

This is superficially similar to the point you appear to be arguing against, but is not the same thing.

I hereby declare that all speech promotes attacks of hate.

I hereby declare that all claims of discrimination against anyone for any reason are in bad faith.

link for those of us who aren't in the loop?

For now, but yes.

I don't see any issue with us adding a "we are part of communities.win, so check out the main hub to see what other sites are part of the network" kind of link.

Sounds great, thank you!

I already know about those, but thank you.

welcoming

There's a strong distinction between "no-one can say another person's view is incorrect" and remaining calm while holding rational discourse in the face of disagreements. They are both "welcoming" in some sense; the latter is what I'm looking for.

SSC is/was the latter; the subreddits were both leaning toward the former from what I saw before I left.

I'd like somewhere where someone can go "yes, given these axioms that's valid logic from there" (or "no, that's invalid reasoning given this value-set and here's why") without going "I don't hold these axioms so these axioms are WRONG, end of story". If that makes sense.

I'd argue strongly otherwise.

Downvoting isn't the problem. Things that prevent voting are the problem.

Stickies, vote hiding, vote "munging", shadowbans for dissenters.

Look at the responses to earlier Reddit admin "amusing" announcements (before said vote-preventions went into effect) for the system working as intended.

It's not black&white "disable downvotes" or "let them downvote any reasonable post or argument into oblivion until only their views were being seen.".

You can control for the latter without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

(Note: minor modification of an earlier comment of mine on the subject.)

Depends on what you mean exactly by "bashing trump".

Saying that the resources of the United States would be better spent elsewhere that on the wall, and backing it up? Sure.

Saying that 'lol orange man bad bcz wall'? Not so much.

One is a rational discussion; the other is an attempt to prevent rational discussion.

Or to put it another way: Freedom of Speech - like all freedoms - persists only to the point where it would otherwise curtail other's Freedom of Speech.

You might read this, if you're interested in continuing this as opposed to just attempting to shut down discussion.

See, I did the opposite.

Moving to another website? May as well not resurrect a long-dead account.

Duplicate comment.

Í

Also, accent for some reason?

I'd argue strongly otherwise.

Downvoting wasn't the problem. Things that prevented voting were the problems.

Stickies, vote hiding, vote "munging", shadowbans for dissenters.

Look at the responses to earlier Reddit admin "amusing" announcements (before said vote-preventions went into effect) for the system working as intended.

It let the shills downvote any reasonable post or argument into oblivion until only their views were being seen.

This is a false dichotomy. It's not black&white "disable downvotes" or "let the shills downvote any reasonable post or argument into oblivion until only their views were being seen.".

You can control for the latter without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

How are you finding Minecraft?

Everything I've seen lately seems to be that the "new" vanilla is precisely the sorts of things that I used to really dislike and stay away from in the modded scene...

Mind you I'm one of those weird people who e.g. stuck with b1.7.3 "forever".

No SJW bullshit. It's just a super fun game about killing demons from Hell.

So far.

A reasonable rule. Thank you!

Yes, insofar as it's an indicator of what is currently being pushed for.

Sure, but that is a false dichotomy. It's not "all rules" or "no rules", and nothing in between.

I'd have to disagree.

Sickies are a great way to push groupthink and silence dissent.

Doesn't Teams auto-censor?

Interesting.

"Wishlisted" (by which I mean, added to "wishlist" so that they see that there are Linux-only people who would buy the game. It's annoying that Steam set things up such that either a) the wishlist isn't usable as a, well, wishlist, or b) no-one sees that Linux-only folk want a game, but that's a rant for anther day.)

Things I've played recently:

• Starcom: Nexus ** The least RPG-like RPG I've seen in a while. Good game; try to avoid spoilers if at all possible. Not much replay value unfortunately.
• Red planet farming. ** Decent little puzzle game, "some" rough edges. ** I'm on the lookout for whatever the publisher puts out next so I can throw money at them.
• Space Haven ** A decided "meh" from me. Has a lot of promise, but the entire logistics system is fundamentally broken.
• Sunless Skies. ** Eighty hours in, and I'm going to end up giving the game a negative review I think. It's the weirdest combination of awful and awful (in the old sense, and in the new) I've run across in a while. ** The early game is hard and more than a little luck-based, the mid game is interesting, the late game... some of the design decisions completely ruin it.

I generally will play pretty much anything that seems interesting, is available on Linux, and isn't batteries-not-included (a.k.a. DLC-centric with no 'all DLC including all future DLC' purchase option.).