Similarly, people interested in philosophy (and other theoretical stuff) might take a break and think of different things like “but how’s the soap made, anyway?”.

My understanding is that tankies believe that groups that have partially or completely followed far-left principles should be exempt from all criticism. I disagree. As long as it is honest criticism, it should not only be allowed but encouraged.

I’ve also heard that tankies are historic revisionists to an extreme. While I agree Western history is not telling us the real version of things, I don’t think other countries are either. I won’t say that an event happened one way or the other just because country A or country B says so. If historians and other experts are still debating an event and its details, I prefer to watch from a distance as I have no way to contribute to those debates.

So… no.

So… is our broken non-native English an advantage now (because one can tell we are real people)? Nice.

And we know what one specific viewpoint we’re talking about.

Dang it! I’m always out of the loop.

I mean, this is still being studied…

SMITE isn’t a shooter, though. Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch and left an empty space. I don’t see a problem if two games (or more) try to fill it. I hope they are fun.

That said, it shouldn’t be Valve’s only focus if fans are expecting different games from them.

Most psychologists […].

And yet for some reason philosophers […] and artists […].

Why are you careful/nuanced with psychologists but dump philosophers and artists in the same bag as if they all do the same?

I see this a lot. The other day, I was watching a science video. Same thing: “some physicists believe…”, “other physicists…”, but “philosophers say…”.

Do you think philosophy and art (disciplines that by their very nature are diverse and creative) create only one type of people? I mean, Karl Popper is a philosopher against Freud, you just said it. You could find many philosophers opposed to Freud, indifferent, critical, in agreement, etc. Artists are the same, very different people among them.

Now, the real question should be why is Freud popular amongst some artists and philosophers and other non-psychologists, especially in certain regions like France and Argentina, or certain traditions like old continental philosophy. And that’s probably the beginning of an answer at the same time: a strong tradition of psychoanalysis within certain circles. Also, a matter of coherence or lack of. For example, if you start reading French existentialism and keep reframing certain aspects of reality, you may find yourself inclined to epistemological paradigms that do not oppose psychoanalytical theories, so you could combine them if you want to. If you start denying materialism in some ways, you may end up denying biological explanations of psychopathological phenomena, so Freud could be a good substitute (or not, depending on the person).

I guess if I were to give a psychological reductionist answer, Freud and similar authors appeal to part of the population that is skeptical of conventional models, the status quo, scientism, hard materialism, etc.

French and Spanish would have been better.

I don’t know, the world is depressing. Recently, details about Palestine have been disheartening…

Communities for underground music and the one for roller skating.

Or:

“Honey, I found some information that the world’s top scientists and doctors are ignoring/minimizing due to biases”.

Historically, I’ve perceived Reddit as slightly left leaning, with strong pockets of conservatives.

Yes, in international subreddits. The national ones were often right leaning (e.g. r/Canada, r/Mexico).

I didn’t think I was ugly because I thought I was ugly. I thought I was ugly because no one wanted anything to do with me for reasons I couldn’t comprehend.

I don’t want to offend you or anyone in any way, I just wonder if it could have been a case of neurodiversity (you being neurodivergent in a way socializing didn’t come as natural as for others).

In my case, I understood my own differences a little late. I was rejected a couple of times because I was apparently showing-off. I connected the dots years later: I was being too effusive and intense, which was read as arrogance or cockiness.

A friend of mine struggled with his autism. People during his school years thought he was grumpy (or worse), when in reality he was having a hard time coping with external stimuli and information.

People can see something is different, but many (even as adults) are not kind about the explanation. Instead of thinking that you are a shy person (or whatever trait they are judging), they might think you think you’re better than them or whatever.

It’s funny how many people default for an option in which the “weird” person is a bad person somehow, but there’s probably some evolutionary adaptations to partially blame…

I also noticed how “pretty” people didn’t have anywhere near as hard of a time socializing as I did. They were allowed to have bad personalities. Even if I was as kind and helpful as I could possibly be I’d never be treated the same way as a “pretty” person would.

Same as my last paragraph. It’s human nature to make judgments based on taste, on personal preferences, etc. “Pretty privilege” is real, and we should outgrow it, but… yeah. It even affects people deemed attractive as they cannot trust the same, they cannot escape things like comparisons, etc. Let’s not talk about the bullying for the other side. It’s vicious.

I hope you’re okay after that experience.

Yes, my psychiatrist told me how his adult patients had some patterns in their lives. I started to pay attention and I can’t believe how similar our stories can be. Anecdotes that are the same, the same challenges… Now I can kindly suggest an evaluation when I see someone struggling 👍.

Edit: I just realized I posted on the autism community. I am not autistic, sorry. I hope it’s okay.

I get rather irritated with those arguments because they only return to the start. “Here, a world”. “Is it how we experience it, though, and why and how; if not, what’s behind?”. “Bullshit, a world”. That’s hardly an answer. And, personally, it feels intellectually dishonest because the question was larger than just “is there a world?”.

I prefer an answer like saying that doubting the world in any form might be a mistake on its own because [reasons]. I do not agree, but at least there’s explanations and communication.

Also, I think they are fighting a straw man. For instance, I doubt many things about the Universe, our knowledge, our minds, etc. Yet, I accept there are phenomena which appear to me. This has been the case since the ancient school of skepticism, and I have yet to meet a person which declares themself a skeptic and does not do this to some degree. For example, I know I’m hungry right now. I don’t know if the pain is real in any other deeper level, or if it is like the pain in a dream that goes away when one wakes up, or a delusion that is felt without external stimuli, or whatever. I don’t know the nature of it, yet it is an experience I must attend. I can even add that the mechanisms behind, the anatomical knowledge and such is useful, but it might be entirely wrong or be as illusory as the pain itself. The straw man is that skeptics would say: “I don’t know if I’m really feeling hungry”, “I don’t know if I want to eat” or something like that.

Why does it matter, then? Because it changes everything. In my case, it made me go from a realist teenager to an instrumentalist adult in science. From an atheist teenager to an agnostic adult.

The discussion derives in many interesting branches too. The mere “does it matter if the world is different from what we perceive if we cannot perceive it in any other way?” is an example. Many people answer yes or no without justifying it. And, at this point, some people might be wondering why we need to justify every single belief we hold and every single thing we say, like the ones throughout my comment, and that in itself is a new good question that emerges. The possibility of having any of these conversations is also a good question, and so on…

So philosophy is not going too far, in my opinion. Some philosophers might go too far, but I really think they are rare (or misunderstood).

I liked Revolt.

The study of psychopathology in any form, particularly of severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder type I.

I like philosophy, mathematics, and arts more, but that would be my favorite field of science.

Those are fun, though. You get a single console that emulates a lot of systems for a good price. Some have cute retro styles!

I got the Miyoo Mini Plus that runs on Linux. It emulates many old consoles like GB and GBA, and can even run some DS, N64, and PS1 games, which are a great addition. Of course you need to tweak it a little with a good OS (not the Chinese one) and a good SD card with a library of games from the buccaneer communities. Edit: It’s not hard at all.

The Steam Deck is amazing, so I don’t think they can rival it, but if they make a better Odin 2 cheaper than the Steam Deck, I’d be tempted, lol.

Exactly. I often post walls of text, and it is probably because it takes me a lot of words to express ideas in English, but I also feel like I cannot discuss something deeply in whatever number of characters are admitted now on microblogging. Forums and such are great and I love reading long posts and comments. Also, I get lost in who is replying to what on those sites, but here it is literally linear!

I was going to tell Lemmy a little about this, but if you’re getting downvoted, this is not the place. I just confirm it is the case for me, family and classmate. It can be scary outside.