I already wrote another comment on this, but to sum up my thoughts in a top comment:

Most (major) games nowadays don’t look worlds better than the Witcher 3 (2015), but they still play the same as games from 2015 (or older), while requiring much better hardware with high levels of energy consumption. And I think it doesn’t help that something like an RTX 4060 card (power consumption of a 1660 with performance slightly above a 3060) gets trashed for not providing a large increase in performance.

I can feel my comment will not be popular, but I felt like saying this.

I mean, you can only carry niceness so far; there’s always going to be a limit. This example will be extreme, but that’s the whole point: if someone showed up trying to justify a genocide, how easy would it be to remain nice and politely disagree with them? We can all agree that there’s a line, the question is where that line sits.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are talking about being nice, all whilst ganging up on the admin, being very uncharitable, and not really seeing things from her point of view. As I said earlier, if there was something you were vehemently against and thought was completely and highly immoral, how easy would it be to politely and nicely disagree with someone defending it? And you might not think something is “completely and highly immoral”, but maybe someone else does; they think it’s a line that should not be crossed. Of course it’s going to be hard to politely disagree about something like that.

Some topics are obviously going to be a lot more sensitive, and it’s unrealistic to expect people to be able to remain fully composed. I feel like the “be(e) nice” aspect applies to more everyday things, you know? Conversations about things like video games or TV shows, for example, which even on Reddit would quickly become very toxic. I think it’s unfair to expect people to remain so composed and collected when talking about something as sensitive and controversial as “when are civilian casualties OK?”. If I carry out a conversation like that, I fully expect it might not stay completely emotion free, so to speak.

There have been examples of anarchy working. Unfortunately, most of the ones I know of were around during World War 2 and got crushed between 2 larger opponents, or backstabbed by one of them.

• Anarchists - and other socialists in Catalonia - during the Spanish Civil War, were stuck between the fascists and the republicans (Soviets), sided with the Soviets and ended up being betrayed. Homage to Catalonia by Orwell is a good book about the civil war and the anarchists.

• Korean People’s Association in Manchuria were destroyed by Japan a few years before WW2 during a war between China and Japan IIRC, and apparently some of its leaders were also killed by “Korean communists” (the same ones that ended up forming North Korea).

• The Black Army of Ukraine fought the Red and White armies at separate times; one time they joined the Red Army against the White Army, and were betrayed.

You might have noticed a pattern there, which is also why a lot of anarchists are not found of Marxist-Leninists or Stalinists.

A “Democrat” is a member of the “Democratic Party” of the USA, it is not a political ideology in itself. Democrats are usually economic Liberals and don’t care that much about workers or the environment, but some are Social Democrats (Bernie Sanders). They are also usually socially progressive.

The Republican Party is also composed mainly of economic liberals; however, they are typically socially conservative.

There is such a thing as a “Libertarian Socialist”, which seems to be what you are looking for. A lot of Libertarian Socialists also just call themselves “anarchists”; and “anarchism” essentially just means something like “anti-authority” or “anti-hierarchy”.

If you want to maybe explore it a bit:

• Homage to Catalonia is a book written by George Orwell where he tells of his time in Spain fighting alongside the anarchists and socialists in Spain (against the fascists supported by Hitler and Mussolini, and against the republicans backed by Stalin).

• The Dispossessed written by Ursula K. Le Guin; it’s a sci-fi story about a society living on a moon, who are anti-capitalists and supposedly anarchists (whether they are anarchists or not is one of the focus points of the story).

If you just want to read theory instead, you can also search for Pyotr Kropotkin, and Emma Goldberg.

No worries, it happens. I’ve also done it a few times, and even re-rewrote comments from scratch after I realized I was being too mean, haha.

I do agree with your point, though. People are a lot more forgiving of CDPR than they would be of other companies doing the same things. CDPR did build up a lot of good will with the Witcher series, GOG and their position on DRM, and other things, but at the end of the day they are still a company, and their main goal is making money.

Just a friendly reminder that Beehaw’s one rule is “Be(e) nice”. You have a lot of comments on this thread, and at least a few are responding to people in condescending and snarky ways instead of engaging in any real discussion. Right now, just as an example, you could have tried to explain how good AI can make a game better.

Let’s please not let this place become like Reddit, where often people can’t have civil discussions and try to dunk on each other with snarky one-liners.