I'll translate: "I got lucky doing the exact same thing everyone does that is working hard and making money in the ways that were available to me but I assume I have what I have because I worked hard and the rest did not, not even the people I work with. I managed to find financial stability that in time allowed me to collaborate with others to grow something that we ended up building together but I own, and although they work "with" me I tell myself they work "for" me because I did it, I, it is mine and thanks to myself, and everything capitalism has allowed me to achieve is thanks to my own. I understand there are people that do not need to struggle like I did but since there is no reason for any of this to be then I tell myself "that's just how it is" I found food, why aren't others happy?"

You say people are willing to give a large portion of their produced value for "heavily reduced risk of income fluctuation"? Like that's what the exchange is. Like if the company does bad and bankrupts they'll still have their job and earnings. Tell them everyone at the business will earn a fluctuating amount of the wealth the company makes equally distributed and if the company does bad it will lower, but you're all in it together. xd

I very much disagree, it's like judging that samba is not good cos it's not blues. They're two different genres with different goals. If it's fun then it is well designed.

You can see this is clearly fake when the crab is shown having to be literate to run for office.

Change that letter for "th".

In any case, people should start viewing IQ testing as "cultural testing". We know it doesn't really capture "intelligence" but a western way of thinking about things. So basically some twins are more educated in western thinking than their siblings, and it has to do with their upbringing into the culture. Not surprised.

In my opinion this is too large of an attempt at reasoning memes as equal to an artist made piece of art but it is full of fallacies. The same images from memes being used can be traced and attributed to its original author with ease, AI cannot. So I'd argue that AI stealing is even more blatant as it attempts to hide its origin. AI makes people think they actually did something and partook in creating the piece, which is like taking an image off the internet and saying you made it. You can edit it, but it is not the same as saying you are the creator. AI blurs the line of ownership by including an algorithm in between, but it is being used to try and heavily commercialise its output in a way that memes never had. You say in italics a fallacy on the style of "memes occasionally can be profitable, therefore it is equivalent to selling AI art", but I think you know how different the reality of both forms is. It is exactly the intent behind the majority of AI image generation to industrialise art, while it is not the case of memes, and you see the same pushback if a company tries to use someone's photo commercially/politically without their consent. In a meme, the image is not the main product, but the context in which it is being used, so the image can be actually replaced but not the same can be done with the text.

And true, I'd argue there's also a component of inherent rejection of AI generated images because it is clear it "destroys art creation" in the sense that artists experience the world and create from said experience in connection with their own perception and ideas, while AI "remixes" said work without any understanding or self input and steals people's expression that is currently being aimed explicitly for commercial purposes. Meme makers do something far better than AI. If all art would be made by AI there would be no art. The only way I'd be ok with it is if you give the neural network sensors to perceive reality and process ideas and thoughts, to then create its own interpretation and expression. I guess it would be interesting to see "art" without emotion.

You pull out of nowhere that most people against AI are not artists, but that kind of claim needs some support behind it. Similarly to how you claim that people against AI art have nothing against using other people's work for memes without their consent. That kind of whataboutism does not contribute to the discussion, as it is just pointing to a "but they do that so I can do this" lame excuse. Sure, people should be more respectful about other people's images, so what.

Even with all of this, I do agree that using people's images for memes without their consent is bad. Doubt it can be stopped but I'd not be surprised if they are strongly affected by it. Empathy is scarce these days and makes me act a bit more bitter on the internet.

This is insane. Why is everyone redefining the feminist movement!? Why so many "this feminism but"? Feminism is the belief in and advocacy of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

Do you believe sexes should have equal rights in society? Yes? You're a feminist. Don't be afraid of the term. That means that you bought up the anti-feminist propaganda. It's like going about saying "I'm against the genocide, but not the kind where I hate the jews or support Hamas or terrorist but I believe in not killing children but of course not the kind of belief where I'd attack israeli sold..." Like wtf is this. That's the definition. Stop tiptoeing. Call it out when you see it. Help your fellow human beings and keep on with your life.

Not questioning it but it is interesting how it is not seen as problematic to depict and dress as fighting for the confederacy when it was in favour of keeping slaves, but Nazis are too much.

I play cis males only, but not as a rule. I just generally will make male characters, likely in part to feeling better prepared at interpreting them, and in part that I feel like I would not play another gender correctly. I understand that it is an illusion, as I could simply play them as any other human/non-human being, especially as I've played other species without issue. But I feel like I would not be able to give them the nuance and characteristics they deserve, and would end up defaulting to cis male attitudes.

I also tend to want to play old characters, as I feel like young ones are too boring. They tend to have too short of a history to have an interesting identity and lore behind them, and I love the idea of facing large challenges later in life while struggling with the decisions of the past and our own will to change. I played in a one-shot where I made an old farm veterinarian that would roam the lands helping people with their animals, who had a fall-off with one of his sons for joining the army of an oppressive despot, and a merchant daughter that traded in stolen artifacts. Rumour had it my character had killed his own wife, and in reality what had happened was that he poisoned her because she was sick and suffering but the religious fanatics did not want to let her die while she suffered. I love characters with personality problems, dense pasts, and a complicated family.

Proud of you. Now going for an all-technocratic party game?

Just found out about this through this post. Went ahead and removed gmaps, then added CoMaps. It might be missing a way to add shortcut buttons on the top from the saved places. But great overall.

My two cents: Imo the question is deeply flawed. "Win a girl" and "being out of someone's league" are assumptions that prevent you from reaching a rational answer. It is like asking "which color makes me look more like a french planet?" It just does not make sense. My reasoning is that (as others pointed out) a girl is not something you win, because relationships were never a game. Nobody talks like this about friends, or how to "win" your brother's trust and friendship. It is a made up "hustler rat" mindset that has permeated through the "winner-loser" trope, and prevents people from seeing the opposite sex as a fellow human being. So then leagues are a deformation of people's personal compatibility and preferences. Someone "out of your league" could at most be interpreted as "lack of compatible lifestyle, goals, interests, and ideals". And even those factors in a person change over time as we grow and alter our interests. Sometimes we like calm people around us, sometimes we prefer someone that pulls us out of our comfort zone, or listens and is attentive, reflexive, or conscious about a topic we are also worried about, and so we relate to each other through our way of thinking. And then very often we even fall or become infatuated with the idea of someone that we built in our heads, which seems to happen far too often.

As some other commenters said, the more you interact and show interest and care for people, the more they will surprise you and the more likely you will find meaningful connections, maybe even a relationship. People make the relationship the goal and forget about the people, turning human contact into an empty experience.