First, they’re not claiming to be socialist. Second, they’re criticizing corporate welfare, not social welfare. They support social welfare in the exact same comment. Rich pricks sucking on the government’s tit and providing nothing to society is a bad thing, or at least the leftwing position considers it to be a bad thing. Are you even reading what they wrote?

“Living on the governments tit” is straight up right-winger bullshit. We pay taxes, why the fuck should the government hoard that money and use it on shit that doesn’t benefit the people? That is the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of a government, to pool resources and skills to better society as a whole.

True on your other points, but here they’re saying the money should be given to employees rather than employers. That’s not rightwing at all; it’s leftwing if anything. I mean it’s the farming version of being anti-corporate welfare.

Because either you’ll cite a good example and prove me wrong, or you’ll cite a bad example and confirm I’m right. While I doubt you’ll be convinced in the latter case, someone reading this exchange might be, so there’s value to be had in either case.

What’s an example of something that’s not politics but is politicized?

We need to stop unfettered immigration, so closing the borders is great, locking up and kicking out immigrants who have committed legal offenses is good, and we should expedite that process but we shouldn’t be kidnapping or profiling people.

This is literally what modern fascism is made of. It always starts with “expediting the process” and “immigrants who committed legal offenses,” but these terms are so malleable that you will relatively soon end up at the kidnapping and profiling stage. And let’s not get into how so-called “unfettered immigration” (which is actually pretty fettered when you look at the process) harms exactly nobody if handled properly, as many examples (e.g. Germany) show.

but also much less regulation because most of it is actually designed to protect the incumbent corporations.

What kind of regulation do you want gone?

Justifying things as “scientific” when the science is social science and the results are not reproducible is intellectually dishonest, and is rampant in discourse about various topics nowadays.

Social science is science and underpins many aspects of modern society such as urban design. Do you have an example of this in action?

Proof: It’s literally what the Mexican government did in 2018-2024. Lifted millions of people out of poverty even as the economy mostly remained the same and/or shrunk. See: https://apnews.com/article/poverty-mexico-president-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador-social-welfare-c7ec7f184ce8163e84fffa1b9f47aed8

Nitpick: They’re Marxist-Leninists, not Marxism-Leninists.

I mean, everything is politics whether anybody likes it or not, because politics is just what you get when you have a hierarchical power structure.

Uh… fucking cope hard. The Nazis won’t care about your enlightened centrism when they arrest you for being brown and/or the wrong kind of white.

This will be fun to watch.

I mean usually yes, but in the history in question here is public and very easy to confirm.

Technology has already given us plenty of ways to sustain a growing (at least until it tapers off on its own at ~10 bil) population without harming the planet too much. It’s the filthy rich preventing us from doing so.

As a wise man (i.e. me) once memed:

The US isn’t the only country in the world where people have mental health crises, or have road rage, or get depressed

Yes, but it’s one of the few first world countries who do almost nothing about it. Did you know mass shootings are on the rise in Europe too despite no relaxation of gun control laws? France is even talking about regulating knive sales due to knife-based crime. Not so coincidentally, this is happening in a time of social and economic uncertainty. Also, one reason I say it’s a mental health thing is that America has more knife-based violent crime than, say, Britain. This points to a deeper factor beyond gun laws leading to the amount of gun violence in America, because as it turns out violence in America is just insane across the board. All countries have people with mental health crises, but the absolute inadequacy of the response to those crises and the number of financial and social destabilizing factors making them more frequent and worse is uniquely American. I mean, with nonsense like tent cities being a common thing of course gun crime will be through the roof. This would explain why places like Norway, Austria and Serbia are near the bottom of homicide rating lists and the top of gun ownership lists at the same time.

Also American society needs serious unfucking at all levels. Conservatives are bonkers but the “gun deaths are due to mental health issues” argument has merit; healthy and well-adjusted people don’t grab the closest murder weapon and kill random people. Guns are a scapegoat so that politicians can avoid addressing the real issues.

Accessibility options can be a a lot more nuanced, even going as far as altering level structures to provide pathways for players that can’t platform.

Sure, but then we’re way past “there’s no reason not to add X.”

In a game like Hollow Knight (and Silksong), I can’t help but feel such a crude setting would end up doing more harm than good. I mean, let’s take health for example. Increasing your health wouldn’t help much if you can’t handle what the game is throwing at you; the few extra masks the game gives you only really help if you can handle the difficulty but need mistake tolerance, otherwise enemies will still hit you and you’ll still fail at platforming and fall into spikes. Fundamentally the difficulty of a game like Hollow Knight comes from a lot more than just damage numbers, so a naive difficulty scale would only give an illusion of accessibility that would fade away at the first difficult part, and in that case it’s better for everyone involved if the inaccessibility of the game is easily apparent.

(I’m just irrationally mad that they removed the cheeseable pogoing. It was so cheeseable but I get why they tweaked the mechanic to become harder to use in exactly the same way. I’m actually using the other offensive abilities more.)

Early game areas feel as hard as late game areas from the first game.

Are you sure about that? It’s been a while since I played Hollow Knight, but other than Hunter’s Marsh I think Sillksong has been comparable to or slightly harder than equivalent parts of the Hollow Knight. The enemies are tougher, but you also get more tools to deal with them so it evens out. Mostly thinking of the projectiles here, but the mobility difference also can’t be understated; you can abuse dash attacks in Silksong in a way you never could in Hollow Knight. Also I haven’t quite (or at all really) gotten the hang of it but the game might’ve been designed with parrying in mind, which would allow you to avoid a lot of damage because many of the harder enemies are warrior types.

Literally me. Explored the whole Far Fields before finding the guy just sitting on his ass in the starting area.