Lurker > adjl

wwinterj25 posted...

Yet you still use reddit and post about it here. It's almost like you crave the drama or something.

You can dislike something but want to try fixing it instead of just abandoning it, you know.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

So blatant misinformation?

Like all people that call any of the vaccines unsafe, yes. Duckbear's quoting the kid's motivation, though, not assessing its safety himself.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I tend more toward handheld, but more out of situational convenience than a real preference. In terms of overall play experience, docked is slightly better, but portability is handy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ArvTheGreat posted...

The vaccine doesnt help public safety since people that are vaccinated can still spread it

Why is it that the anti-vaxx/mask/whatever people seem to think nothing is worth doing unless it's a perfect, absolute solution that makes the whole thing go away? Any reduction to the rates of infection, transmission, or hospitalization helps public safety, and the vaccines reduce all three of those.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Arcturusisnow posted...

So flying through your windshield during a crash and crushing your skull on the pavement won't kill you? Okay, got it.

He could have worded it better, but I believe PO meant *other* people. Not wearing a seatbelt can also kill other people (mostly other passengers in the same car, but it's not that implausible for somebody being ejected to cause a secondary collision), but it's primarily a matter of personal risk/safety. That's different from vaccines, which are a matter of public safety.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

I forgot about that game.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

The "unsafe vaccin"? So he refused (most likely) Astra Zenica? That sounds like it would be relevant information for the article.

He's referring to all Covid vaccines in a collective sense. The US has at least 3 different options available, but the anti-vaxx fearmongering doesn't discriminate between them at all.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

This has got me thinking, has anyone here used rhubarb in a savory context? I'm sure I could easily find recipes if I went looking for them, but it's overwhelmingly been a sweet thing for me (usually in pies, often with strawberry), and I'm curious about other people's experiences.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

papercup posted...

right but it's a rectangle. so it's like tiling 1080p 4 times

Indeed. Doubling two dimensions increases the final product by 4.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nah, bro.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

EvilMegas posted...

Adji, it's a matter of opinion. You already know there is no morally correct answer to this question.

You don't think he should be executed for his crimes, that's fine. But don't act as if it's off base to want someone who is a proven danger to all of those around him, someone that has killed for literally no reason, to be killed.

Him being a proven danger is not a matter of opinion, though. That's clearly measurable. As it stands, he is indeed dangerous, such that society needs to be protected from him. Killing him, however, is just one possible solution to that problem. Imprisonment is another. Treating his mental illness may be another, depending on how that assessment and subsequent treatment efforts go.

Why, then, is killing him the preferred solution? If prescribing him an antipsychotic would stop him from ever hurting anyone again, why would killing him be better than that? What's the basis for bringing in the concept of "deserving" death?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Pretty rarely. For things like that, I tend to leave them in specific spots: Keys hang by the door, wallet's on my desk, phone, glasses, and watch go on my bedside table overnight... my sunglasses are really the only potentially tricky one. Sometimes they live in the car, sometimes they're in my backpack to use for biking, sometimes they're on my desk or near the door to use for walking or transfer back to the car, and that means I often end up either not having them (especially if I forget to take them out of the car before my girlfriend takes it for the day) or having to look in a few different places for them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

If the monitor isn't big enough and/or you're sitting too far away, you really aren't going to notice a difference.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, and if you do, you probably don't work very hard.

This is really sad.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Full Throttle posted...

I don't find COVID to be scary or all that serious to be honest and everyone is acting like this thing is going to kill everyone when there is a 99% survival rate.

Meanwhile, he does think the vaccine is scary and is acting like it's going to kill everyone. People are dumb.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-shooting-justice-gleason-family-killed-suspect-bryan-riley-investigation/

Yes, I'm loosely aware of the facts of the case. Why do you believe he deserves death?

Conner4REAL posted...

We put down dogs who bite when provoked.

Why do we do that?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ArvTheGreat posted...

People use to get sick all the time and go to work before covid

It's almost like Covid is both more contagious and more dangerous than any of the diseases people would routinely go to work with. Who knew?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

What is 5?

Okra.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I think the only thing you can really do at that point is make eye contact and fart.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

GastroFan posted...

Judd is known for getting his face on the nightly news in Florida every night for one reason or another. A few years ago, when asked by a local reporter why he'd shot a murder suspect fifty or more times he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "we would've shot him more times but we ran out of bullets". Yet he's considered 'tough on crime'; so he gets re-elected time after time.

The joys of cop worship, I guess.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

I'm not a police officer. He deserves far worse than death. Am i a psycho? or do i lack the qualifications?

Why does he deserve death?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Nuts are not typically considered vegetables, but pretty much everything else on there could be. Rhubarb and maybe pumpkin are the main exceptions, since they tend to be used in sweet dishes more so than savory.

They're also all (with the exception of rhubarb) considered fruits, botanically, but the concept of "vegetable" is purely a culinary one, so comparing that against the botanical definition of "fruit" doesn't make much sense.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think this anti-vaxx views is gonna hurt his career?

If he makes a habit of shutting down production for days at a time by trying to infect his coworkers? Yeah, I could see that hurting his career.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

He's right that he's better off since he owns an iPhone

This mentality is incredibly common, but it grossly overstates just how much of a luxury owning a smartphone is, and is largely a holdover from an era when consumer electronics were seen as a sign of great wealth. Even if you're buying a brand new iPhone of the latest model, that's less than a month's rent for many people, as a one-time expense that generally lasts for 3-4 years. If you don't go for the most expensive available, you can easily find an older one for under $200, or possibly even get yourself into a basic plan that includes the phone effectively for free. That's really not a major expense in the grand scheme of living expenses, and in exchange, you get:

• The ability to communicate with friends and family via the internet (both locally and wherever home was)
• On-demand translation services
• Maps
• Email
• Access to resources to help navigate the services available to refugees (many of which are in one's native language)
• Access to news, particularly of what's going on back home
• Banking, particularly sorting out whatever needs to happen to access the resources they had at home in their new country
• Entertainment (which, as much as people like to scoff at this, is really good to have when you're in such a miserable situation)

Toss in a cheap basic or pay-as-you-go plan, and you also get:

• A phone number at which case workers, potential employers, schools, and any other important entities can reach you (arguably a prerequisite to get a job)
• The ability to communicate (at least locally) with friends, family, employers, and anyone else without needing to find internet access

Coming from a position where most of us added smartphones to our existing suite of devices and services, they seem like they're just a nice convenience to have, but don't do anything that you can't cover with other devices. Starting from nothing, however, a smart phone is one of the most cost-effective quality of life improvements you can possibly get, arguably even better than shelter (given a choice between buying a smartphone and paying for one more month of rent, you're actually going to be better off becoming immediately homeless with the phone than homeless without it in a month) and definitively second only to food.

Quite simply, owning a smartphone does not mean somebody isn't poor, nor does it mean they've foolishly wasted their limited funds on it. Getting a smartphone should actually be among their first priorities, if they're really starting from nothing.

On top of that, whatever wealth these people might have come from, they left almost all of it behind. You can't stick a house in your pocket. Nor a car. Nor a TV. These people fled with the clothes on their backs and whatever they can fit in their pockets, and that latter part pretty much means a wallet, a passport, and a phone. Having a phone doesn't mean somebody hasn't lost pretty much everything, it just means their phone fit in their pocket.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Revelation34 posted...

There's nothing wrong with having just one hobby.

It is generally healthy to diversify a bit, and especially to encourage kids to have different experiences for the sake of well-rounded development, but forcing kids to limit something they enjoy for the sake of "encouraging" them to do something they don't doesn't achieve that. Encouraging them to try new things doesn't have to involve not allowing them to do established things.

That, and while you can easily argue that a 6- or 7-year-old should be introduced to a wider range of experiences for healthy development, 16- and 17-year-olds are another story entirely, which laws that affect all minors uniformly (such as this one) don't account for. By then, people have generally had enough experiences to know how they want to spend their time, and arbitrarily trying to force them to do something else is just going to breed resentment.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

When immigrants they don't want here complain about human rights issues there are Americans who have it worse and they should be grateful.

Every other time America is perfect? Or we don't care about homeless people?

So I don't care what hypocrites have to say lol

Yeah, I'd have a lot more sympathy for the "we should help our own first" people if they didn't actually mean "I'm content with the current state of our most disenfranchised people, I just want refugees to have it even worse than them."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

HornedLion posted...

This.

Hes a fucking CEO. Youd think hed know better than to say shit that could adversely affect the company. Even entry level plebs know this. Maybe thats the problem... maybe he thought he was hot shit and untouchable.

That, or he's looking to retire and saw this as an opportunity to make a tidy little severance package for himself by shorting his own company's stocks.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, they went "He killed a whole family and a young child, he deserves to die... aww dang he has to be protected by the system that will just release him in middle age even worse than he went in."

Do you really think police should be making snap judgements on who "deserves to die"?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Blighboy posted...

Oh honey

I said what I said. There's a lot of rot to burn out of the US police system, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be burning.

Sahuagin posted...

I likely agree with you, but you keep using the phrase "get away with killing him" which seems like a contradiction. you're smuggling in wrongness by saying "get away with", whilst simultaneously agreeing that it's justified. either it's justified, and not wrong, in which case there's nothing to "get away with", or it's not justified, and wrong, and something you could "get away with".

I do see your point, my wording is a bit contradictory. Mostly, he wishes he could justify killing the guy so he wouldn't get in trouble for doing so. There's an underlying desire to kill him without due process, which is bad.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BUMPED2002 posted...

None because I don't trust the vaccine

Why not?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

GanonsSpirit posted...

You mean like making a law to force women to follow your ideologies? Yeah, you're right.

And the whole "reward people for accusing their neighbours" thing is indeed a really nice homage to Salem.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

streamofthesky posted...

Subverting due process would be if he opened fire anyway.
Returning fire on him if he's shooting at the cops is absolutely legal and justified.
He's saying, "I wish I had the legal authority to end him right there, after what he did." Implicit in the statement and his actions is recognizing he did not have that authority and he did not shoot.

Shooting someone shooting at the police is not "getting away with murdering someone".
Shooting someone unarmed and claiming, "he was reaching for his waistband" or "he made a sudden movement" is getting away with murdering someone.

Shooting someone shooting at the police is not getting away with murdering someone. Wishing someone had shot at the police so you could have shot him, however, is wishing that you had an opportunity to get away with killing him.

He would have been justified to open fire if the guy had come out shooting, yes, but the bottom line is that he's outright wishing he could have killed this man and gotten away with it. That is not a sentiment that any police officer at any level should let themselves have.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

What I or any other layperson thinks shouldn't matter. Whether or not this can be attributed to his mental health is something only qualified mental health professionals can determine. I'm not about to jump to such conclusions based on a fourth-hand (if not more) account of his mental state.

mrduckbear posted...

Sheriff Grady Judd said the former marine was a "coward" who surrendered to them rather than shooting it out with police and said he held his hands up and came out so they couldn't kill him

He said "It would have been nice if he'd come out with ag un..if he'd given us the opportunity we would have shot him up a lot but he didn't. He's a coward. YOu see it's easy to shoot innocent children and babies and people in the middle of the night when you've got the gun and they dont but he was not much of a man"

This, on the other hand, is disgusting. A sheriff openly wishing he could have subverted due process because of how upset he was about what happened. That's not somebody that should be anywhere close to a gun, let alone in a supervisory law enforcement position. Can't blame mental health for that one, dude's just a bag of festering feces itching to get away with murdering somebody.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Based on their responses in the other topic about Y'all Qaeda, most likely.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

yes, instead murderers should get to live the rest of their life, getting free food, access to tv, etc. ....

If offered a life sentence in a Norwegian prison, would you take it?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

In that case, you might even be able to set up a private server yourself and just enjoy playing it alone. It might be worth looking into, if you really want to play the game.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

keyblader1985 posted...

That's the ducky thing about online games. They only exist as long as the servers do.

That said, sometimes you'll get private servers popping up if there's enough demand. Those can be kind of hit or miss, but generally it at least gives you a chance to enjoy the game again.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

Except you're not. You're literally making multiple interpretations, and one of those directly contradicts something where -- if you did take it at face value -- you'd come to the opposite conclusion.

You're welcome to cite specific examples, if you've got any. I'm really not seeing what you're trying to get at, though.

Zeus posted...

If they're asking kids to not do something that they're doing now, maybe that's hypocritical -- although even that isn't a guarantee because it's generally understood that children and adults need to be held to different standards.

But if you are going to hold them to different standards, you need to justify that, not just say "I'm an adult so there." What basis is there for different standards?

Zeus posted...

However, you're talking about things done decades ago when people learned better since. The fact that somebody did something stupid in the past and learned better from it doesn't magically mean they lose the right to criticize somebody forever for it.

And therein, we arrive at the part where you implied that 3 hours/week was a sensible metric for "playing responsibly," which you've yet to actually defend beyond accusing me of jumping to conclusions.

Zeus posted...

Compared to what? Pretending that there goalposts for this when it's 100% subjective is more than a little deceptive. If you're picking a number out of thin air, 3 hours is as good as 5. There's nothing you could really consider a "reasonable" starting point because everything about this is arbitrary.

Mostly, compared to my own experience of being (ostensibly) limited to 6 when I was a kid and finding that ludicrously restrictive. Being limited to half of that (and actually having that enforced) would be absolutely miserable and pretty much kill gaming as an enjoyable hobby (which is what the Chinese government is clearly trying to do, given their comments that roughly amount to "video games are evil"). That's also compared to my experience of finding that I'm extremely limited in what I can play if my session is capped at an hour, since that's not enough time to accomplish much of anything in most games that aren't Solitaire (heck, depending on the game, that might not even be enough time to get between save points).

If you want something more objective, though, we can define "extreme" in terms of the range of time we're looking at: The minimum would be 0 hours, the maximum - assuming 8 hours/weekday for school/homework/commuting, a conservative 6 hours/night for sleeping, and an extra 1-2 hours a day for meals, personal hygiene, and other such miscellaneous needs - would be about 75. Obviously, that maximum is just silly, and the vast majority of gamers fall closer to the other end of the scale, but even if we go with a much more realistic upper bound of 20 hours/week (much more subjective, but I'm guessing we can intuitively agree that anything past that is more than kids should be playing), 3 hours is still very close to the lower end of the scale. That's just math.

Zeus posted...

That wrongly posits that all hobbies are somehow equal. There's no justification to view all hobbies as being equal, so that's a faulty premise.

In turn, you are positing that no other hobbies are as deserving as gaming of having the time spent on them forcibly restricted, which is even more faulty than the premise you're incorrectly accusing me of establishing (note that I merely pointed out no other hobbies are restricted, rather than suggesting that every hobby should be equally restricted). Certainly, we can make the argument that other hobbies exist that are measurably more beneficial than gaming and therefore shouldn't be subject to the same limitations, but that absolutely cannot be said for every single hobby, therefore there is no reason for gaming to be the only one treated like this.

Zeus posted...

...and does waiting to smoke until you're 18 and drink until you're 21 create greater risk for addiction? Because literally the opposite is true. As people reach adulthood, their minds develop so they're MORE resistant to addiction, not less. Science already resoundly contradicts your train of thought.

Arguably, yes. Smoking's just a stupid decision no matter how old you are when you start, but leaving people to learn how to drink responsibly on their own/from their peers instead of providing them with opportunities to learn with supervision does result in a lot of irresponsible drinking behaviour.

Zeus posted...

Were you not alive during the 90s? Because I thought you were at least in your thirties.

There are ways to play together without online, and it's actually more social than online in many cases.

32, but offline multiplayer is very much not the norm these days. Certainly not among games that are popular enough that you can call playing them a social activity. This has been a large part of the reason for the shift from gaming being seen as anti-social during the 90's (playing with a small group of friends is seen as being less social than playing with a large variety of acquaintances) to the more mainstream status it sees now.

I would actually agree that couch multiplayer is a more meaningful social experience than online is, generally speaking (though the notion that online friends are less valid than offline ones is largely nonsense perpetuated by a generation whose closest analog to an online friend was a pen pal and therefore doesn't understand how it could compare), but restricting online play that heavily country-wide is still going to reinforce the notion that gamers are antisocial (and those enacting these restrictions don't see a problem with reinforcing that because they're completely convinced of it themselves).

Zeus posted...
I can see the merits to that argument, although federal governments pretty routinely put *other* restrictions limiting parenting choices so it's not an absolute.

While true, those restrictions generally boil down to "put their seatbelt on" and "don't beat them," not "they may not spend more than X hours on this hobby." That's just a ridiculous degree of micromanagement unless there's actual, concrete proof that such limits address a clear threat to their safety.

Zeus posted...
>_>
<_<
>_>

That was my logic. Whatever the details, I understand that "yes" is the "they shouldn't be doing this" option, and I'm disagreeing with you saying "it's not that bad." If that was unclear, my apologies.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

t5yvxc posted...

Are people here seriously trying to argue one should go "google" or "research" every fun fact someone posts?

If they pay enough attention to it to internalize it? Yes.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

zebatov posted...

In response to what adjl posted

Blocking me, but still directly addressing me and paying attention to what I post? That's really sad, dude.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BEERandWEED posted...

The government always tells the truth.

Just like Facebook memes, right?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Are we just ignoring that "taking something at face value" is synonymous with "assuming the statement is correct"?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

NatsuSama posted...

Fortunately assumptions are an easy error to correct.

Yes, that is indeed what I said. It's generally very simple to correct an erroneous assumption.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'd argue that not having insurance is more of a gamble than having it. Paying for insurance is paying somebody else to take on the financial risk associated with whatever you're insuring. You'll generally end up paying a premium in the long run (since you are receiving a service), but in doing so you end up with an expense that's predictable and therefore much easier to budget around.

That doesn't mean insurance is always a good idea, but it boils down to managing risks sensibly. Skipping out on insurance is gambling that whatever you'd insure won't happen, or at least that you'll be able to cover the costs if it does happen. In the case of life insurance, you need to consider what your dependants will need if you die. With no dependants, so long as you/your next of kin can afford your funeral, you don't need it at all (and if you want, pre-paying your funeral costs is an option to render that point moot). With a wife who doesn't work, four kids, and nowhere close to enough savings to sustain them until they can get back on their feet after your death, not having life insurance is unfathomably stupid.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

NatsuSama posted...

Like assuming one is spreading misinformation making accusations.

Fortunately, that's a pretty easy error to correct. You've had it pointed out that you were mistaken to so quickly believe what you read, but you also had no plans to proliferate that information, and now all is good.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That is an absolutely pathetic amount of food, but I also recognize that the logistics of feeding that many people on short notice make it difficult to do a good job.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

You quoted me explaining how they aren't prolife to try a both sides argument?

It's a personal gripe that's tangentially related to what you were saying, not really meant to argue with your point at all (particularly where I completely agree with you). I would generally agree that "pro-life" does a considerably poorer job of representing their position than "pro-choice" does the other side, but I don't typically bother comparing them because they both suck and we should just be talking in terms of abortion access instead of life/choice.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I am strongly against calling them "pro-life" because they legitimately aren't. The demographic that tends to identify as anti-choice tends to be in favor of the death penalty and hatred of the poor.

Honestly, I hate both labels. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" exist purely for the sake of implying that the other side is "anti-life" and "anti-choice," because apparently neither side is capable of making a convincing argument without resorting to painting the other as monsters.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kotenks posted...

This is not a men vs. women issue. The constant framing of it in this way is dishonest. Half of women are pro-life. When we look at gender, we see the same about 50/50 split.

The existence of pro-life women doesn't change that this isn't an issue men should be weighing in on at all. The men (and it is overwhelmingly men) passing legislation like this will never have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, no matter what laws are passed. Much like straight people voting against gay marriage, it's a matter of people who have the privilege of not caring about such legislation creating it and hurting people without that privilege.

Kotenks posted...

So I'm not certain what this person means by men being excluded.

That post spells it out: Every single aborted pregnancy has a man attached to it, yet that man is never subjected to any of the penalties people seek to apply to that abortion. The narrative is consistently "you (the woman) should have been more responsible," completely ignoring that another person was equally complicit in creating the pregnancy. Overwhelmingly, the attitude is that women should be punished for having sex by being forced to carry their pregnancy to term, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of pro-lifers stop giving a shit about the child the instant it's born.

You still haven't answered: Why is it that you feel "they had to get the ball rolling"?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Llamachama posted...

Here is a better question:

Do you want to live in a country where the police can just come and break your door down, hold you to the floor and stick needles in you? Or force feed you pills? Or force you to have other medical procedures you don't need or want?

I'd rather not.

How exactly is it that we're getting from "you need proof of vaccination to access services that you share with other people that might be endangered if you aren't vaccinated" to "the police will break your door down and vaccinate you at gunpoint"?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

You're pigeonholing and reaching there.

I'm taking what you said at face value. If anything, any other interpretation would be reaching.

Zeus posted...

The overarching criticism is that asking kids to play responsibly is bad if their parents didn't play responsibly, which is just f***ing stupid.

The criticism is that it's hypocritical for somebody that has and/or does enjoy playing games to think it's reasonable to limit kids' play time so much that they'll be hard pressed to ever finish a game. Which... is true. Whether or not that's bad is up to interpretation, since hypocrisy is logically and morally neutral if examined in a vacuum, but it is definitely hypocritical.

Zeus posted...

As for the amount of time, anything is ultimately arbitrary. Considering all of the other hobbies kids can have, a 3-hour limit on games doesn't seem insane. At a certain point, you're really just splitting hairs.

There's obviously room for subjective interpretation, but 3 hours/week is definitely on the extreme end and mostly just serves to punish and stigmatize people that want to adopt gaming as a major hobby (note that the restrictions apply to all minors, which includes older teens that are able to make decisions about how to balance their hobby time for themselves), especially where other hobbies are not similarly restricted. If anything, I'd actually go so far as to say that it's worse for encouraging game addiction/susceptibility to microtransactions because it promotes playing games that feel rewarding to play in short bursts (and, in turn, paying for microtransactions that will facilitate that), especially with it being broken up into three 1-hour blocks.

Of course, the fact that it's specifically online games being restricted makes it less restrictive. Offline gaming remains a viable hobby, so that's not that bad (though it does pretty much guarantee that nobody can play an MMO until they turn 18, which also potentially creates greater risk for addiction because they won't be exposed to that risk in an environment where they have parental supervision and guidance to help them recognize when they're getting sucked in). That does, however, ensure gaming is seen as an antisocial hobby, since gaming online is the primary means by which it becomes a social hobby.

Mostly, though, while you could say that it's an unreasonably extreme limitation for parents place on their kids, but justify that as being a personal parenting decision, enforcing it as federal law is definitely not reasonable. That's a totalitarian decision by a bunch of old dudes who don't like video games and understand virtually nothing about how or why problem gaming becomes a thing and what protection children actually need from the modern gaming industry to prevent them (and their parents' credit cards) from being exploited. That's not "playing responsibly," that's virtue signalling the belief that video games are evil.

Zeus posted...

Also, even if you decided to interpret my post literally, keep in mind that the "yes" was the too extreme option.

Yeah, I opted to roll with the misinterpretation because that's what you were responding to. He did indeed misinterpret the poll, but your response was based on the underlying message of his misinterpretation, which doesn't change regardless of that was the "yes" or "no" option. For the sake of being consistent with your response, I opted to use "yes" to represent what he was talking about, even though that wasn't accurate to the poll's actual wording.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.