ScrivenerX

I didn't say that at all.

I think there is a problem with over-tutorializing in AAA games. I don't think they are going away, or the hobby will collapse. I just think of the opening experience of Elden Ring versus Jedi Survivor. One puts you in the action and has a 30 minute optional tutorial dungeon, the other has tutorials pop up four hours in the game.

I don't play for long stretches, maybe two hours at a time. It's not satisfying for me to play a game three or four times and still be in tutorials. For me AAA games are the absolute worst at this.

AAA games are part of the problem.

When I have a chance to play a game, I'd like to play a game. Not have 2-4 hours of tutorials, 30 minutes of a cool story and then 5-30 hours of pointless side quests.

Funny how one instance is the one everyone wants to defederate from.

Because you aren't open to conversation. You just want to quip that you have secret knowledge and everyone else is an idiot, and smugly feel superior as you read Russian propaganda.

It's worse than just that. They argue that acknowledgement of Stalin's atrocities is Holocaust denial.

They are so scared and insecure they will lash out against anything that slightly challenges their beliefs. If they post sources it will be misreadings of fringe groups, or conveniently ignoring facts. Like how they believe tiananmen square wasn't a big deal because the China killed about 300 people a mile away. Or how Cuba is a utopia even though it's citizens chose to get run over by the coast guard instead of living there.

He said it was blown out of proportion, don't put words in his mouth.

There were literal TV spots on whether or not planes will drop from the sky. The threat was overblown.

Lots of people did tons of work to keep systems online, but even if they all failed the end results wouldn't have been that bad. Money would be lost, but loss of life due to Y2K would be exceedingly rare.

Let me know what sources you'll accept, because there is an abundance of evidence about the massacre, including photographs.

The only people contesting this is the Chinese government and fringe groups.

I see that you linked an opinion article, however you have misrepresented the article and it's implications alongside my statement.

At no point does the article say if you compare numbers, or mention other atrocities you are denying the Holocaust. It is saying the damage caused by the Holocaust was on a scale that is not analogous to other atrocities and it is possible to attempt to trivialize the Holocaust by turning it into a numbers game. There is much about how Baltic people may use this as a deflection for their own involvement with the Holocaust, but that's clearly conjecture.

Also I never said to compare Stalin to Hitler, I said mentioning Stalin's atrocities existence will get you called a Holocaust denier. I'm sure you see that you proved my point.

Don't defederate from hexbear, they aren't that bad.

They aren't great, it's like a bunch of very confident college kids refusing to listen to anything that challenges their beliefs. There is a high percentage of trolls, but it's the Internet. I've seen some shockingly bad takes, like tiananmen square had no casualties, or as highlighted by this thread, criticism of the USSRs well documented atrocities is tantamount to Holocaust denial.

Just ignore them and move on.

I think you misunderstand me.

I believe that racism is a problem, especially in medicine. I think that there are many groups who are discriminated medical professionals.

I don't think the information is presented in a good way. But I think it's important to look at this information. Racists don't care about what the data says, that doesn't mean it isn't important for sane people to see the data. It's like the infamous crime statistic, where the conclusion racists draw is black people are not only more likely to commit crime but they are also bad and will be caught, as opposed to thinking for one brief second that the issue is one of unfair enforcement.

I think that suppression of knowledge isn't a good course. Obviously the information was presented in a poor fashion, but there is a difference between it just being racism and being really bad at showing data. But presenting findings can't be considered racist, taking findings out of context can be.

I meant to type over/under state.

I believe, in aggregate, data can show trends. The cause of these trends is not always clear. Using this example, if it is true that black people, on average report a higher pain number for similar incidents when compared to a different group, that doesn't mean they are lying. It could be that there is a genetic marker that indicates experiencing pain at a higher level. It could mean that past experience with doctors have taught them they need to state their needs as dire to get the care they need. It could mean that more black people can't afford healthcare and as such only go when it is more severe. It may be a cultural phenomena, like how in Britain "man flu" is considered a thing.

I don't believe data says people are lying, I believe data can show a trend. I feel that it is good to be aware of data.