If you’re suggesting that political assassinations are more common in modern times, let me introduce you to the Life Details column of the List of Roman Emperors wiki page.

Lol I love how many different songs reference it. Truly, music kills fascism.

Haha my first time was The Chariot’s last track on their last album.

Rebrand as Antipedo and see what he does.

For the analogy to be apt, it’s more like the wolves are at the point where they’re just doing the sheep killing. There’s no subtlety happening here.

Yes, and RFK and the right love to exploit that, telling people to “stop trusting experts and do your own research”. If everyone he’s talking to is a scientist, great. But if everyone just falls back on their own heuristics, that’s exploitable.

I think the breakdown in communication is due to a difference in how people’s brains have been trained to accept something as “true”. Some people embrace the scientific method, while others are dogmatic.

To elaborate, I imagine you (aspire to) readily alter your personal beliefs to fit the data you’ve observed. But that is a foreign concept to some people. In order to utilize the scientific method, you need to be appropriately trained in it, and you need the intellect to apply it. But if you’re lacking in either department, you still need to be able to function day-to-day, to dress yourself, do your job, pay bills, and just stay alive. No one has time to think critically about every single challenge they’re presented, so our default behaviour is to create heuristics which can be reused multiple times without needing to think.

The difference between science enjoyers and dogma stans is that the latter group slowly learned over their lifetime that heuristics helped them function in life more than relying on their ability to reason; and now not only do they depend on the exchange of heuristics between others in their group (their “ingroup” as-it-were) in order to function, but they assume everyone operates that way (it’s all they know). The scientific method is a just a vocab term they forgot in middle school, and the idea of re-evaluating your beliefs is frowned upon, because that means you must have bad heuristics!

So back to your original question, I believe the confusion happens because you and they have different implied meanings when you each ask for a source of information: You ask because you want new evidence that might change your conclusions about a subject. But they ask because they seek to discredit your source of heuristics. In their experience, if someone told them X, but then later that person turned out to be wrong, then that’s enough reason to doubt X. That’s their heuristic for doubt, so that’s their goal, to make a map of your ingroup and try to foster doubt within it.

That is the only reason in their mind that they would ever have to know your sources, the concept of empiricism is mostly foreign to them.

They know how this works: wait a week for everyone to move on to the next thing. The only thing that has even slightly managed to defy this pattern is the epstein list, and even then it’s still too early to tell.

“No? Too far? Aright ‘sorry’, let’s move on.”

What’s old is new again…

The golden rule of fascism: always first accuse others of the conspiracies you’re going to engage in.

And lastly, I am wondering how this is going to impact Nazis like Kirk in general. Are they going to ramp it up or step it down?

There’s a reason marvel used a “Hydra” as the mascot for fascism. We’re still at the beginning of this roller coaster.

“You will not get gun deaths to zero. You can significantly reduce them…by having more fathers in the home and more armed guards in front of schools.”

I fucking burst out laughing. This guy was a walking meme.

Party of small government, ladies and gentlemen.

Museum of the Bible

Whoever named that place gave zero shits lol

If it’s the one I’m thinking of, I barely consider that one a run back. It’s like 40s to get to the boss from the bench. And at that point I the game, I noticed myself start hitting the bounce plants much more consistently after having to do this run many times. Up until then I hadn’t been forced to repeat the same small section yet.

And (staying vague to avoid spoilers), the bench itself was particularly “surprising” specifically because of the long gap without any benches leading up to it, forcing you to repeat the same long platforming/combat sections over and over. Players would not have been “surprised” by it if they weren’t so desperate for a bench.

I will need to play more of silksong to be able to comment fully, but I felt that, even though you could understandably say all the same stuff about Hollow Knight, I still do think that the only times I struggled in HK (on required content) I later found out about an upgrade that was available if i had looked that would have made the fight much easier (nail upgrade, ability, charm, more hp, etc).

No, not to the same degree as Elden Ring, i agree, but I do think HK’s exploration played a very similar role as it did in Elden Ring. In both games i would tell people to only bash your head against a boss if you want to hurt yourself, otherwise go explore.

And that’s what the title should be. “Cracking down” implies there is something that needs cracking down on.

Do you believe DS and Megaman could have been even more iconic if they had listened to players and made their runs back shorter?

My point is, it’s not like the designers didn’t know what they were doing, this is a very obvious aspect of their gameplay. And regardless of how minor inconveniences like this make us feel as players, we don’t know that it’s not precisely those lows that contrast with the highs to create the intended experiences which made those games cult hits to begin with. You wouldn’t look at a Rembrandt and say, “look how much of the painting is just black! You’re wasting all this space! You could add so much detail and context in there!”

I’m a firm believer that “given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game”. If players weren’t complaining about the run back, then they would be complaining about the empty flask drinking animation. Inconvenience is not a convincing argument to me. Just like any art, games are free to evoke any and all emotions. It only becomes a problem if the emotion they keep evoking is boredom lol. But even then, boredom is a valid tool on the artist’s palette; sometimes the only ones who are getting bored are the boring people.

Have you considered that the run back is trying to tell you something? The game doesn’t want you to bash your face against the same enemy the same way. It may not even want you to fight that boss yet at all.

The run back is meant to be an incentive to think about your options. Do I have other areas to explore? What do I keep dying to? Am I overlooking an obvious weakness during a particular boss mechanic, or am I not using an ability as effectively as I could be to stay alive?

If you let the player immediately run back into a boss, they will veg out and do just that until they eventually get lucky and barely down a boss by the skin of their teeth. But that’s not how you should be approaching these fights.

Sometimes the most productive run back even involves a good night’s rest.