@mzaman@todon.nl

· 1mo ago

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I genuinely can't grasp being excited about GTA VI.

The previous installment was bland at the best of times. The protagonists were boring, unsympathetic, or both. The entire game is an enormous waste of resources on almost every conceivable level.

The one sorta interesting feature (the heists) was somehow underdeveloped, despite pretty much everything else in the game being overdeveloped.

Even ignoring the heinous behind-the-scenes stuff at Rockstar, I have zero interest in the next GTA installment. It looks like it's going to be another bloated mess that's unable to focus on being fun.

#gaming #gta

todon.nl

Todon.nl

4

1

0

Esper @mzaman@todon.nl

· 4mo ago

You dislike the Green party because you think they hate cars.

I dislike the Green Party because they don't hate cars enough.

We are not the same.

3

1

0

Esper @mzaman@todon.nl

· 5mo ago

Replying to

@transform@climatejustice.social If you can somewhat predict these future needs, you can simply take them into account in your planning as best you can. You can create structures that make that future need relevant in the present. This can be as simple as setting aside money for future office space or as complex as creating a working group with the responsibility of advocating for that future need. Part of what makes anarchism appealing for me is that you're also not necessarily bound by past decisions. Plans and goals can be adapted as reality changes. If you didn't already account for a certain need, you can start the moment you notice something needs changing.

3

4

1

0

Esper @mzaman@todon.nl

· 5mo ago

Replying to

@unionwhore@ni.hil.ist @transform@climatejustice.social That definitely happens, but it can be a good idea as long as you can make sure something will be different on the next plenary. People could do further research or gather more data, schedule one-on-one or small group conversations about it, modified proposals can be developed, etc.

2

0

Esper @mzaman@todon.nl

· 5mo ago

Replying to

@transform@climatejustice.social Forming decentralized groups depending on risk levels is something that already happens during mass actions. Of course, in those cases the risks are about arrest, bodily harm, and maybe physical intensity rather than the potential loss of access to food, shelter, companionship, etc. Still, the basic model exists. One thing group might do to reduce the chance that people are getting emotionally invested to the detriment of the conversation is to just explicitly lay out in what way the groups is willing to guarantee (or at least try to) meeting certain needs. Without going into too much specifics, I was once part of a drawn-out consensus discussion about something that _could_ absolutely impact certain needs. One break-through came through our collective making it explicit that continuing to try to meet those needs was a continuous goal we all shared. We were also aware that if we couldn't figure it out, we would end up with two different collectives, each with their own view on which needs were more important to them. Which can also be an acceptable outcome (though maybe not the most desirable one).

1

0

Esper @mzaman@todon.nl

· 5mo ago

So I recently rewatched the prequel trilogy and the whole thing with midi-chlorians is obviously dumb, but what struck me was how easy it could have been less so.

Instead of causing Force powers these organisms could just be attracted to the use of those powers or whatever. We know that people capable of wielding the Force already do so without any training, as shown by Anakin being able to podrace.

Or, you know, just not have them because the entire plot reason to have them is to convey that Anakin is really strong in the Force.

1

0

Esper @mzaman@todon.nl

· 5mo ago

Replying to

@transform@climatejustice.social Are those issues that are specific to future needs? To me, it seems those are more general issues when trying to reach consensus on something that is intangible or has a fair amount of uncertainty. And/or that might affect people who aren't present at the meeting (although here the issue is that you can't just go ask people, because they don't, strictly speaking, exist yet). We regularly make plans that involve uncertainty. How many people will be at our community event? What route will the fascist march take? Will the police use water cannons? I don't have, like, a write-up on how to best deal with that, but I do think that assuming relatively good faith and people making an effort to reach consensus we already manage to do this more often than not. If people accuse each other of having the wrong level of caution that, to me, points more to a need in learning how to communicate more constructively (we shouldn't be accusing each other) and a need to first discuss acceptable levels of risk. Consensus is something people need to practice to get good at. Part of this is self-reflection. For example, I know I tend to be to focused on what can go wrong. As such, I point out what I think are potential risks but I also trust my comrades to mitigate my innate pessimism.

1

2

0