Because it requires nuance and that just too big of sacrifice to make when you have to be right about everything.

Well if you want to get nitpicky there's no "roleplaying" in a Bethesda games because there are no bad outcomes. Minor spoilers about BG3.

For instance in BG3 I went into a camp swords blazing and murdered everything in sight. Turns out I killed a recruitable companion along the way that I never would've found out if I hadn't read about it online. Technically speaking that's an undesirable outcome because I'm going to miss out on some content but at that moment I didn't give a fuck and similarly the game just went along with it. At no point did the game even hint that maybe I shouldn't kill that character, if anything the game told me the objective is to kill that character. Had it been a Bethesda game I 100% would've been prevented from just murdering that companion and the game had given me a chance to recruit them.

Similarly I reloaded one hard fight 4 times to save a character who was relatively important to the story. That bitch just kept on running into AOE effects and getting herself killed. BG3 didn't give a fuck if that character lived or died because the story would've continued without her. We all know how Bethesda handles characters that are important to the story, they literally cannot die.

And finally I'm currently at a point where the game gave me 2 choices, either I send one of my companions into eternal servitude or another character important to the story dies. Maybe there's a third option that lets me save both but I might've missed it. If this was a Bethesda game there wouldn't even be such a situation because it doesn't matter what you choose, either option has a bad outcome.

And those are just examples from my current playthrough. From what I've seen others play you might not even get to those decisions, which means some decisions will lock out other decisions down the line and that's once again something Bethesda does less and less with each game

Baldurs gate 3 gets praise because it's a great game, Starfield gets shit because underneath it's just Skyrim in space. Are we supposed to give praise for a game that follows a decade old design philosophy? If Doom 93 came out today should we lose our collective minds? No, because the industry has moved forward. Our expectations should be higher than Skyrim. There are good things about Starfield. The moment to moment combat seems excellent and Bethesda clearly has improved the visuals compared to FO4 and FO76. But the rest of the game seems it could've just as well been released back in 2011.

And before you think I'm some hyped up tweeb who is now disappointed that Starfield didn't live up to the hype, I haven't been hyped about a Bethesda game since Fallout 3. I'm well aware how easily Bethesda springs up hype and how the final product doesn't really match the hype they promote. I had pretty basic expectations of what Starfield might be and I feel like Starfield was pretty much in the ballpark to the expectations I had: good shooting, lots and lots of loading screens and menus and very little of actual "space". That's to say I didn't have high expectations in the first place.

If you tell a joke and I start to word for word retelling your joke then I haven't stolen your joke? After all the joke still exists in your head.

If you have an excellent idea, for the sake of scale let's say it's a million dollar idea, but you don't have the means to realize that idea. Now let's say I heard of your idea and I can realize the idea and make millions off it. Have I stolen your idea? The idea still exists in your mind but it's no longer a million dollar idea because I already made millions from it.

If someone scrapes the web for your activity to create a profile of you (which is for instace what Facebook does) is that stealing your data? After all none of your data goes missing

Similarly if someone hacks your bank and takes your financial and personal data the bank holds, is it not stealing? Does it magically turn into stealing if after taking your data they delete all the data from the banks system? What if they encrypt it without deleting, effectively making the data impossible for the bank to use?

So it's okay to steal because someone else is stealing more than you?

Why would it? If they're open for discussion there's clearly something to discuss.

Actually, without any other context, I would. I would label them as misguided. Just because they believe in what I believe as the wrong thing doesn't mean they're automatically toxic. If they're unwilling to even consider alternate perspectives or decide to just be antagonistic then they're toxic.

to apply adequate pushback to erroneous understandings of the world. the goal isn’t to convince the interlocutor. it’s to encourage the people reading to investigate the topic. on many of the topics in question, the history and ideologies involved take entire books to deconstruct - doing so in an internet comment is extraordinarily difficult. the people we’re talking to don’t even agree with us on the meanings of basic words - there’s not even a basis for debate. because such debate is so unproductive, the aggressive tone encourages many people to stop and ask more serious questions. this undoubtedly works because so many of the posters on hexbear responded in exactly that way here or on reddit at some point in the past. and when they asked those questions, they got detailed answers, including links to sources so they could investigate for themselves. in actual fact, many of the people on hexbear received exactly the kind of aggressive pushback you’re decrying and ended up eventually convinced that our viewpoint had something to offer.

Maybe at one point but if recent events are of any indication that is hardly true anymore. The reason these defederation threads prop up if your aggressive presentation made people inquisitive. It's an indication that people respond negatively to such behavior. And I'm inclined to believe people respond more negatively than positively because the responses I've seen about subject I know about have been less about making people inquisitive and more about just throwing in their face that they don't understand something the same way you do without explaining anything.

lastly, civility is not an unmitigated good unto itself. civility is the false peace – it masks tensions, pretending they don’t exist. real peace is not civility – it’s a state in which tensions are brought to the fore so they can actually be resolved. civility is a white, middle class sensibility – our world is incredibly fucked up and the people affected by it do not owe anyone that masking of the horrors of our world.

I disagree. Yes, there's no space for niceness as you need to be ready for conflict to test your ideas and beliefs. But it doesn't mean we should completely disregard civility. Are you really going to take me seriously if I call you shitstain in this post, bitch lover the next, steamy turd the next etc? I know I wouldn't take anything you say seriously if you came with such disrespect. Similarly I have no problem trolling the living shit out of you, but that already means I have zero respect for you or your beliefs and nothing you say or do will even get true critical examination, outside of how to better troll back. I could easily derail this discussion, drag you down into shit slinging contest and then sling shit until you stop responding but that's pretty far from civil discourse and not at all constructive. Discourse needs to have some mutual respect and if none is given then none is received, which means the discussion will go nowhere. The world is fucked but slinging shit between eachother doesn't really unfuck the world.

nor do we owe anyone an education they will neither ask for nor appreciate

And this is probably where we completely disagree. Your stance is that nobody asks or appreciates it so we shouldn't give it unless they really ask. I believe we should give it regardless because it's still a chance for them to open up to something new. I would've never familiarized myself with Das Kapital if not for someone else explaining to me that Marxist understanding of "capital" is not the same as "capital" taught to you in school. Had someone told me "How did they get the fucking money mf?" I would probably still believe capitalism is not that bad. Explaining socialism to someone who won't listen doesn't take a piece out of me, so why should I act like it does? To me it's a net positive. If someone listens and becomes a socialist that's good and if someone doesn't listen then really nothing actually bad happens because as you said, the world is fucked regardless.

Let's forget forget about the rest of our discussion and focus solely on the very first response you wrote to me. Based on that response I could've applied that same thought process you just described, decided that you're here in bad faith and respond in the way Hexbear users tend to reply. And all this current discussion wouldn't have ever happened because based on that response you'd believe I'm here in bad faith and responded in kind. In fact that way no discussion would've happened.

The way we communicate is prone to errors and misinterpretations. It's why I'm focusing on your your first response because it's an excellent example of miscommunication. You used "you" which implies it's directed at me, but in a later response you clarify that it wasn't directed at me. Thus discussions require a certain level of benefit of doubt, because it's actually very easy to misrepresent what was said and just as easy to misinterpret what was said. I gave you that benefit of doubt and we seem to be having a rather civil discussion. And I've already somewhat explained what would've happened if I hadn't given it. That benefit of doubt is crucial if you're wanting to discuss in good faith, because you need to give a chance to correct miscommunications.

And that's why I think the thought process you've described is a bad faith thought process, because it doesn't give the benefit of the doubt. At least that is my general experience with Hexbear users. Someone says something disagreeable in a manner that could be misinterpreted in the way you described and it's very rare to see a Hexbear user give the benefit of doubt. Instead you see, well everything here. One guy says Hexbear is a cesspool and seemingly only one of you gives him some benefit of doubt, the rest very much troll, antagonize, make snide remarks etc. The vast majority of you responded in the same way you'd claim someone else is responding in bad faith. What if he previously had a miscommunication that Hexbear users didn't give benefit of the doubt either? He gets piled on in a manner you've described as bad faith. With those bad faith responses he now believes you are all acting bad faith, hence the cesspool remark. And what is the response he gets? More bad faith responses from Hexbear users because the vast majority don't give him any benefit of doubt.

You think others act out in bad faith so you respond in bad faith which makes others believe you act in bad faith which prompts more of you to act in bad faith. It's a a bad faith feedback loop. Genuine question, what's the goal of such behavior?

Alright, so others are in "bad faith"? How do you know? Just based on one interaction with them?

And how do you know I'm not interested in the response?

It's bad faith to automatically assume someone being critical is doing it in bad faith.

So as long as they don't ideologically agree with you it's acceptable to be toxic towards them, because their "wrong ideology" makes them toxic?

Are you also aware that most of the proletariats unknowingly uphold capitalism? Considering you say they're toxic are you against the proletariat or are you a fake socialist trying to create a class divide, the ones who agree with you and the ones who don't, within the proletariat?

You think collectively antagonizing, using "libs" in a derogatory form and calling others "imperialist running dogs" constitutes as defense and not toxic behavior?

White NATO has unreasonably expanded against their word in recent years,

Just a heads up, that is actually Russian propaganda. NATO agreed with the USSR to not expand further but the USSR collapsed and Russia has been very adamant that they don't consider themselves as the successor to the USSR. That means no such guarantee has ever been given to Russia. It's Russian media that has perpetuated the idea that NATO has somehow promised to not expand.

You see a lot of Nazi symbolism? Because clearly fascist symbolism is not given a pass. I'm also not sure what you mean by capitalist symbolism. There's no universally agreed upon symbol for capitalism, the closest thing is the dollar sign and that has a dual meaning.

So please, be more specific (ideally with examples) with what you mean when you say fascist and capitalist symbols. I'm sure if there's anything specific (like the hammer and sickle, that was purposefully chosen as USSR symbolism) worthy of banning then there's probably no issue with the removal of such symbolism.

In this case the the definition of "authoritarian" is taken from a rather anarchist perspective, where any any and all infringements on individual liberties is authoritarian. If your mother calls you in the morning and tells you to get up, that's an authoritarian action because, theoretically, your mother is trying to overrule your individual freedom to sleep for as long as you want. It also means any community you're a part of that has a set of rules (not matter how lax) in place is an authoritarian community because they're infringing on your individual freedom to do whatever you want. Even the Engels piece referenced before implies the authoritarianism of the process of work (if you want to work as a collective you need to agree on certain rules that ultimately infringe on your freedom).

It's a perfectly fine definition if you want to get philosophical, but in your day to day it's a pretty useless definition. By this definition all civilizations throughout history have been authoritarian, because all of us have to sacrifice a piece of our freedom/individuality to co-exist in a society. Even the pre-civilization clan mentality is authoritarian, because you have to sacrifice some individuality to be a part of a clan. Thus accepting some level of authority is a fundamental part of any society which is why the strictly philosophical definition of authoritarianism IMO has no practical value, because it ends up stating that almost everything in your daily life is authoritarian (to some degree).

And to explicitly state why democracy and authoritarianism isn't viewed as opposites, it's because by that same definition democracy is authoritarianism. You willfully sacrifice some individual freedoms to allow the will of the people to flourish.

Nah, I just don't consider harassing someone as a form of defending the community or its members. But hey, if you enjoy being an asshole, I'm not going to stop you. However I will now stop responding to you because so far what I originally said still rings true: "No substance beyond trying to antagonize me." You've offered nothing to me, beyond entertaining me during my time-wasting hours, and so I've got better shit to do.

So you're Batman? Vigilante taking justice into your own hands?

AFAIK as I know you started shit with me so what do you want? Harass me?

What do you want? Just to harass me?