Avatar

Don't call it a comeback, I've always lurked

@zexreborn / zexreborn.tumblr.com

My favorite part of playing old Baldur's Gate is how the spell system works.

So, intelligence actually doesn't matter that much. Intelligence determines how many spells you can learn (e.g. slots in the spellbook,) and determines the percentage chance for learning spells (All spell learning requires using a scroll; some of the time, you'll fail to learn the spell and waste the scroll). It doesn't determine DC or anything like that.

Also, once you've learned a spell like this, it's always going to be there, even if your int decreases.

Also also there are many ways to temporarily increase your intelligence.

So I made a Bard with low int, right? Since I'd played future editions where their spellcasting was governed by charisma - but in 2e, it's governed by intelligence! I set my primary casting stat to 12 without giving it much thought.

What's a very slutty bard of slightly above intelligence to do?

Well, if you're a magical shopkeeper in Baldur's Gate, imagine you see a cheerful didsheveled old Bard come in and spend three hours combing over your entire scroll collection. He buys as many useful scrolls as he can carry, plus three potions of genius.

He sits down right to the side of the counter. Snorts an impressive amount of modfinil/potion of genius. Binges on scrolls more complicated than you've sold in half a decade. One after the other after the other just inhaling magical secrets it took you years to comprehend. It's been 8 hours and instead of asking you for directions to an inn or even where he can get some water, he goes back to view your wares. Looks over the whole stock. Buys enough useful scrolls that he can only barely carry them. And three potions of genius, of course.

He sits down. Repeats the process. Now he's learning stuff that you know he won't be able to cast at his current power level. When you tell him this he says "Oh, I know, but I've gotta get the most out of these potions of genius. I'll just commit 'em to memory now and once I'm strong enough to cast 'em I'll know 'em!" And then he just. Completes the Bard curriculum. The most powerful Bard spells, he knows, even though he can't cast them yet. All of them. All the ones you sell, anyway.

He wakes up in the morning with the worst hangover of his life. An incohate sense of loss, as if his sight is dimmer, his comprehension less. His mind bursting with arcane secrets that he no longer comprehends but can absolutely still call upon in battle.

He leaves the poor shop staff a 100 gp tip and collapses in the softest bed in the most luxurious inn in Baldur's Gate.

A week later, you see a wanted poster, for treason. He looks much better put together than he did when binging nootropics and arcane scrolls, but that's definitely him. A week after that, he's the hero of Baldur's Gate. A week after that, he's a Bhaalspawn. You wonder what he'll be next week.

"And what have you given us?" Asked the man. "A civil society," Geocities said. "If you can keep it."

The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of Tocqueville.

Guy who got his news exclusively from John Oliver and refused to read actual news has started sharing Onion articles with additions like "reblog if you agree" or "this says a lot about our society".

Definitely going the add the "Last Week Tonight to complete divorce from reality pipeline" to my world view. Explains so much.

I have heard some things about Last Week Tonight being willing to ignore some studies that say something completely different.

I have to stress that this is a specific guy I know who is extremely politically opinionated but also refuses to look up topics that make him mad in mainstream media. He thinks The New York Times is transphobic for getting away from its Trump era mission of "moral clarity", so he cancelled his subscription. Before, he was subscribed but did not actually read it. He will not seek another source for something he got from YouTuber Shaun_Vids or Last Week Tonight.

Sometimes he would argue with people because they contradicted his sources. And when I talked to him about what the point of journalism was, he told me that it's good facts. It's not enough for a story to be true. It also has to be edifying, has to be educating, has to be true in the right direction.

He doesn't know anything about Ukraine, and he refuses to look it up.

The "Onion incident" was the straw that broke the camel's back. It's fair to say I used to know this guy now.

This is personal. I'm really fucking upset I lost a friend.

This was all a lot of preamble for @socialjusticefail, and maybe @siryouarebeingmocked and @takashi0. (IF ANY OF YOU REBLOG THIS VERSION OF THE POST, THEN WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, DIDNT YOU LISTEN) Every time someone of you reblogs my posts, I get a lot of un-fun drama in the notes. I don't want to have to block all the idiots whop argue with your followers, and I don't want to have your followers use the opportunity to get the last word in, and I definitely don't want to get a bunch of people three or four steps down the re-blog chain from you go "yes, and" on a post and act as if I said far more than I actually did. I guess that's just the stress of having high-follower-count accounts pick up my personal post.

This post didn't even get that many notes, but y'know, it's the principle of the thing.

Last Week Tonight is fine to watch. But it's entertainment. It's not news. Even if it is news, if they manage to get s real investigative scoop, it's only news when you can get mainstream media with actual journalistic standards to pick up the story and fact-check it. Last Week Tonight does not run on the editorial standards of a newspaper, it runs on the legal standard of "what can we get away without losing face or being sued". It's closer to Saturday Night Live than to actual news.

And that's fine. It's not a problem if you watch CNN or read USA Today, which is the American newspaper I have actually held in my hands the most of all American newspapers, but never read online, because it's the newspaper of choice at breakfast buffets at cheap American motels, alongside Yoplait no-fat yoghurt, toast from a conveyor belt toaster, and these thick waffles you can make for yourself in one of those heavy hinged waffle makers with multiple degrees of freedom so you can flip the waffle halfway through.

Anyway, Last Week Tonight is not a problem, or a source of misinformation, and neither was The Daily Show. The problem is when people watch Last Week Tonight instead of news.

Over the last years, my former friend has had an increasingly loose grasp on what is going on in the world. At first I didn't understand why. And Last Week Tonight is not even to blame. It's the most news that's left in his media diet.

But you have to understand. This guy feels informed. It's not just news. When I contradicted him on specifcs, he sent me a link to an hour long PhilosophyTube video about something incredibly vague and broad big picture stuff. He would refuse to spend five minutes to read an actual local newspaper article or a history book. He trusted a breadtube video about Jordan Peterson (by a non psychologist) as a source of psychology knowledge over an actual into to psychology textbook.

After the "Onion incident" was the straw that broke the camel's back.

If the alternative is this, then please, do your own research, read papers, read textbooks, read Wikipedia if you have to, and don't just trust infotainment shows. But by all means, watch Last Week Tonight, and play Hogwarts Legacy. I'd be a hypocrite of I told you otherwise. You have my blessing to pirate AAA games and pay TV.

Avatar

I disagree. This was always where the incentives for The Daily Show were pointing. Each successor, starting with the Colbert Report, moved more in this direction of false-sense-of-knowledge. It’s what distinguished them from other comedy.

Your ex-friend is an extreme case, but this is that media ecosystem working as intended.

I don't think the The Daily Show could ever be mistaken as real news by a sane person, but sure, Last Week Tonight was trying hard to be taken seriously as investigative journalism. And the terrible thing about this it can have all the seriousness of Saturday Night Live if it serves a punch line, but it makes people feel more informed. It switches back and forth between "this is boring but serious, and you should pay attention", jokes about funny animals like raccoons, and jokes about the serious issue.

This is only dangerous if you don't follow other sources of news, if you don't know which part is there only for the punch line. The real danger is feeling informed without being informed. After a couple of months on a Last Week Tonight only media diet, or any single-source non-news media diet, you may not even feel like something is missing. If you completely "cut the cord", and stop watching TV news, stop reading a newspaper, and stop following online news sources, you know that you are out of the loop. And if some piece of news floats your way, you know that you have some reading to do to understand and contextualise it.

It's just... really hard to blame Last Week Tonight for this, even though they have been working to make this happen.

Avatar
I don’t think the The Daily Show could ever be mistaken as real news by a sane person

Well, you might be right, as sane people are extraordinarily rare, but it was certainly mistaken for real news by huge numbers of people. There were dozens of thinkpieces about people who cited their primary source of news as The Daily Show, back when it was still fairly new; it was something like 8% of respondents to polls about TV news. That only got worse over time.

Hmm. I mean, it's not like the Daily Mail, where many things you read are unlikely to be true, but at least you get an overview of world events. Something from Last Week Tonight is more likely true than something from the Daily Mail, but it's even less of the picture.

I don’t think the The Daily Show could ever be mistaken as real news by a sane person

It was the only news show I watched in high school. I also spent a lot of time in a politics debate chatroom which had a bunch of antisemites, some fundies and a calvinist, so who's to say which was worse

I think the last time I said this you mistook it for a justification of only getting your news from The Daily Show, but it's really not:

The American news media is *dire*. Starting at least 40-ish years back with the rise of cable news and a monopoly friendly media law landscape, local news sources have been hollowed out and replaced with smaller and smaller handfuls of increasingly shallow news coverage.

In its prime during the Bush years, The Daily Show really would, quite often, provide more historical context or actually ask obvious follow-up questions in ways that the cable news establishment rarely bothered with anymore.

I guess I don't really have a point. Have y'all seen Network yet?

Also, like, most news shows were extremely depressing and stress inducing, and the humor of Daily Show made it a lot more tolerable for people who found regular news shows too depressing and stressful. Like, it wasn't exactly an adequate substitute for "real news" but for people who would have their mental health significantly impaired by regular exposure to the endless negativity and disaster narratives of "real news" where every snowflake means a deadly blizzard and a new ice age is imminent (and I'm only slightly exaggerating), exposure to comedy news shows may be better than no news, which seems like a more realistic alternative in many cases. Expecting the alternative to The Daily Show to be C-SPAN seems as silly as media executives assuming that all piracy represents lost income rather than increased consumption that simply wouldn't exist without it.

Avatar

As someone who generally avoids news because of how unrelentingly depressing it can be, I also avoid Last Week Tonight because it feels like getting informed and it feels good to do so. This might just be a me thing, but as someone who isn't an activist, watching Last Week Tonight feels like activism, it feels like doing something, when really I'm just watching popcorn media.

That's why breadtube is a lot more tolerable on that front, cause it's obviously just some guy, it doesn't trick my brain the same way.

In case you have any scruples about this: You're probably fine. The problems start to mount when you feel more informed than somebody who gets his news from the BBC.

Then again, @isaacsapphire, if somebody can't handle the real news, that person will inevitably clash with normal people when discussing real-world events.

Avatar

I feel like John Oliver is particularly bad about this - and Breadtube too, if that’s your only source - because it was consciously trying to get rid of topicality/recency bias. As a tonic for relentlessly-focused print and broadcast journalism, spending 25 minutes on something that’s as much of a slow-burn as fraud in insurance bills, say, is actually pretty nice. But if all you’re watching is John Oliver you can come away with the impression that owning shitty CEOs by making a few prominent subreddits be about John Oliver for a bit is the most important thing happening in the world that day. It just replaces recency bias with the-stories-that-play-well-on-John-Oliver bias.

Mega shoutout to FFXVI for great disability accommodation options. The “Active Lore System” is a curated list of 0-6 small lore entries that are relevant to the current cutscene, accessible by pausing the cutscene. They’re curated by hand and will change when e.g. a new character or concept is introduced.

This is very convenient for able-minded gamers, of course, but for those of us with memory-related disabilities it’s a godsend.

Avatar

one of Dreher’s complaints about globalisation and modernity is that it makes it impossible to be the kind of believer that once existed, someone who believes without thought or question because they know no other possibility even exists; now he’s reaching a little here, the idea of foreign gods and foreign ways of living wasn’t unknown even thousands of years ago, but to some extent he’s right: if you want to grow up in a community without any contact with the outside world that basically means North Sentinel Island and nowhere else at this point.

a liberal society can grant you the right to follow your preferred way of life in peace, but it cannot grant you the right to have everyone around you follow that same way of life such that your children follow in your footsteps and don’t even question that another way of living is possible, you’re going to need to colonise another planet for that (thanks for the idea, Asimov!)

Conservative Rod Dreher: “It’s such a shame we no longer live in a totalitarian society where information and dissent are so heavily repressed that even the idea of political or social change is literally inconceivable to the average person.”

Like that’s a fucking monologue at the end of 1984: “one day the Party’s rule will be so absolute that there won’t even be words to describe anti-Party ideas. All thought will be under our control.”

And it shows the fragility of Dreher’s ideology. He knows that the only way you could get people to tolerate it is if they were made so ignorant that they’re unaware that anything else is possible. Mere knowledge of other ways of life would be enough to instantly discredit his proposed way of life.

This is why religious fundamentalist parents are psychos who lock their children up, homeschooling them and not letting them interact with media or culture. The way they want their children to live is so manifestly undesirable that one cannot possibly raise a child to live that way voluntarily. They have to be kept in a prison of ignorance, unaware that they could live any other way. 

Avatar

well yes, but you can frame it in a more positive light if you squint a bit, like the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island appear to be having a better time of it than their neighbours who have been assimilated by global culture, although that may change after a few generations.

turning somebody’s world upside down can mess them up for quite a while, even if you only offer them options they weren’t aware of in the past and you’re only taking away their ignorance; thinking you understand how the world works can be comforting and some people feel its lack more keenly.

Avatar

But the converse is true as well: transitioning from a pluralistic society to a closed one is massively costly, and you don’t know who’s going to pay that price. Surely the most important part of the liberal detente is that it *stops the shooting.* However much Dreher misses that feeling of certainty, it cannot possibly be worth the risk that Dreher’s tradcath side *loses* the war of all against all that he’s trying to instigate, and he and his family wind up in mass graves.

Why hasn’t Reddit coalesced around a functionally identical alternative yet? They did this once before!

Avatar

“This is a tapestry I made myself! I just finished it!” 

“…. this is…. big.”

“Eighty feet long, ten high, in forty panels! It was originally going to be sixty feet, but then the Thomas Malory Arthuriana got big and I had to put more stuff in.” 

“… Malory published in the fifteenth century.” 

“Do you have any idea how long it takes one person to embroider eight thousand square feet of tapestry?” 

“You’ve had a lot of free time in the last eight hundred years, haven’t you?” 

“Not once I took up embroidery as a hobby, no!” 

“Want to see my stalagmite cultivation work?”

Avatar

The fantasy of being a CRPG protagonist is fundamentally that of a blue-helmeted peacekeeper. As Commander Shepard, or any of the protagonists of the Fallout games, even on into Wasteland and Pathfinder, the power fantasy is one of parachuting into a situation you have no experience with and finding just the right words with the purest intent and cleverest negotiation strategy to make sure that nobody dies, or at least nobody who doesn’t deserve it.

This is one reason why these skills have to be bought with points, rather than be freely given, even though in practice the speech skills are so useful that not investing in them would be a terrible idea. Even if every player, in practice, winds up taking these skills, it has to be mentally contrasted against the clod that didn’t invest in these skills. If there were no such contrast, the speech skills would hardly be gameplay at all, since with a few exceptions ‘winning’ these challenges just boils down to clicking on the choice that uses your speech skill.

Mass Effect 1 really drives this home by making international/interspecies politics a core part of its morality system. A specter is, after all, not much different from a UN super spy. Many moral questions in the game, including the endgame (supposedly) trilogy-warping decision, hinge on whether you trust or are willing to promote the interests of Space European Union. It was really disappointing, to me anyway, that the second game made this decision for you - forcing you to work outside the Council’s remit and forcing you to work with a terrorist organization based on human supremacy.