AlexanderTheDead
WAHHHHH THE (non atrocity causing civilians of) COUNTRIES THAT COMMIT ATROCITIES ARE CALLING OUT MY TEAM AND I FEEL MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY TEAM FOR THEIR ATROCITIES.
-you
What the fuck are you talking about
I'd argue the dragon age series died with dragon age: origins and everything since then has been a pale imitation. A "good dragon age game" is a solid CRPG with branching quests and story decisions. Which we haven't had since DA:O.
"I didn't read the article."
Okay then read it or don't participate in conversations that you're walking blind into? What the fuck lol
I'm not going to argue this, but no.
https://whyquit.com/joel/Joel_03_31_is_cold_turkey_the_only_way.htm
Important to note that Joel has no citations for any of the claims he makes in this article tho 🤔🤔
Why don't you pay attention to how medical professionals treat addiction and keep your anecdotal, poorly educated experience out of it?
Okay, I want to dicuss this more later. It's interesting to me to think about something as taboo as limiting free speech, but I get what you mean. The power the bourgeoisie have to control the news and media and therefore public opinion is crazy. My first thought was limiting their twitter usage, which I do think would be wrong. But limiting their ability to manipulate twitter with money or other, similar tactics would fall under the same umbrella. (Hopefully Ninja edit: but should be prevented, I mean! They shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to influence. But I don't think their literal speech should be restricted! Unless they break the rules or something and get banned or something ykwim)
I know, I see the .ml 🤣
I think the morals of it are important for the sake of optics in the least. If oppression implies a cruelty and injustice (at the very least in some minds, mine included, and probably most people given the dictionaries I read/bing search results) which is not associated with the movement, it might be better to not use those words. Fair?
Okay, so what I'm saying is that the definition I'm reading cites "injustice" and "cruelty" as prerequisites.
"prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" (oxford)
"the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control" (oxford)
"mental pressure or distress" (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn't really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)
"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" (merriam-webster)
Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.
"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom" (Cambridge)
I stopped looking after that, but I think that's fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?
Anyone who has experienced addiction knows that addiction is a permanent disease and that obviously partaking in the substance again will more than likely lead to continued substance abuse. Jesus christ.
But, and maybe this is a semantics argument then, I don't think we are in agreement by what oppression means. I'm just using the google definition. Are you using a different definition that makes more sense in the context of theory/academic circles? I am a layman, after all