I think lemmy.ml mods/admins often wipe entire comment histories in the community/instance when they remove specific comments. Say something about Taiwan and boom, your comments talking about toilet paper patents are gone
Don’t quote me on that though
For real. I wish it were these people killing themselves with their stupidity, not others…
Yes.
No. It doesn’t make a difference to the viewer that does it, obviously they seem to not care, because they do it anyway…
You just created the solution to your own confusion. Congratulations. Now consume it
Watching isn’t playing. This is my whole fucking point.
Considering your argument revolved around vaguely claiming “viewing people playing single-player games is different from viewing people playing sports” which then turned into arguing it’s because of the “intention” of the activities rather than the actual result, no. The only time you even actually argued about playing sports was when you acted like sports are inaccessible and then realized that wasn’t gonna work out. You wanted to sound philisophical but instead you sounded stupid, congratulations again.
This statement is utter nonsense.
Considering you have no idea what you’re talking about, let alone what the conversation you engaged in was about, I can see why it doesn’t make sense to you.
Your most recent response has proven satisfactory. I expect your cognitive dissonance to fade shortly. Do not resist.
Feminism means gender goes into the shredder. No gender. FUCK gender, punk ass bitch ass social construct. Burn it at the stake!
Note: many feminists may or may not disagree
can i get two cocks
Yeah duh that’s why it’s called eSPORTS I’m not really talking about 1 genre of videogames I’m talking the medium in general so we should limit this to concepts that can be applied universally here.
So you’re admitting your entire argument is “story mode games are different from competitive games”. That’s what you mean when you say that watching games is profoundly different from watching sports. Gotcha. And then you’re pretending that competitive games/gamemodes and other non-narrative/non-art focused games are A. all one genre or only exist as e-sports and B. don’t make up a large portion of the most played and most watched games.
Then, you’re pretending that it actually makes a difference to the viewer as to whether or not Alien Isolation is intended to be experienced “second-hand” compared to kicking a ball with some specific time and scoring rules. Clearly the average viewer of bakery simulator streamers or horror game streamers are getting the exact same sort of engagement and experience as someone watching a match of tennis or soccer. The end result, to the viewer, pretty much the same, which makes your “point” moot. The entire point is the experience of watching the content itself. Your idea is that games “weren’t designed” for it, therefore it must be an entirely different experience for the viewer. It isn’t.
There is more disparity in how someone feels watching golf vs. American football than there is between someone watching American football vs. Halo Red vs Blue or Overwatch. There is more similarity between watching tennis and watching Omori than there is between watching tennis and watching Airsoft. Sports are often times more different from each other than they are from games, and games are often times more similar to sports than they are to other games. It’s not complicated to grasp, really.
The fundamental difference is That you don’t have to field a team, practice, meet up, etc. to play baulders gate.
You definitely do that for competitive/ranked gaming or esports (well, you obviously don’t meet up in person to play ranked CS:GO but you know what I mean).
it was built from the ground up to be experienced by a person the same way you might read a book.
Conveniently, you chose a genre that is literally based off of books. Regardless, games like that aren’t even played like “reading a book”, they go completely differently every playthrough. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make here.
Watching someone else play it isn’t the same as that same person watching football because a writer, or game developer doesnt write a sport. You aren’t defeating the purpose of a sport when you watch someone else play it, you’re just watching people participate in a framework of rules, not experience a narrative.
You aren’t defeating the purpose of a game when you play it. Unless it’s a visual novel or something, it’s not like you’re reading a book. Not only are you pretending that all games are primarily narratives with a path that it’s predetermined you’ll take within a short number of playthroughs, but the narratives you are talking about still don’t fit your description. People aren’t all the same and they play games completely differently, unless you have thousands of hours to put into literally every game you’re not gonna experience every unique experience from a game like Baldur’s Gate man.
You are defeating the point of the media when you watch someone else play it through YouTube or twitch.
Not at all. You’re not going through a predetermined experience when you play Rainbow Six Siege (ew) or Baldur’s Gate 3 any more than when you play soccer or golf. Chess is technically “predetermined” in a sense that it has a finite number of moves you can take and a finite number of possible outcomes, you can technically “solve” chess, but we’re not gonna pretend like that means watching it defeats the purpose of playing chess. Watching other people use the tools the game gives them along with their own creativity is what makes both sports and games fun. I’m not going to think of everything the same as someone else; and I certainly don’t want to play a few million matches of soccer until I experience every new soccer experience, so why should I be expected to do that with games? Watching someone use some advanced technique to improve their play shouldn’t defeat the purpose of basketball for me, I just try to incorporate that into my play or think “oh that’s neat” or something and continue playing. Watching someone do something creative or something I didn’t know about in a game just improves the experience while also being entertaining.
That being said, I don’t play games much nor watch games anymore, so maybe the gaming YouTubers have compromised by enjoyment of gaming. But I also don’t watch or play sports anymore, nor film, so it’s probably just the neccessity to have a job keeping me from using my free time on entertainment… no, I’m on Lemmy, therefore I could be gaming right now, so naturally that must mean my gamer spirit HAS been stolen by Twitch.
The comparison should be “you like movies why don’t you watch movies?” But of course, the dad probably does watch movies.
Not sure what you’re getting at here.
Organized? How exactly? “Organized” varies by regional law or context. If it’s sponsored by a local sport union and the play is based around a set of rules, that would be organized enough for you, no? That’s the assumption I operated off of.
Why does being “organized” matter in the first place? Something doesn’t need to be professional league whatever for you to view it anyways. Neither sports nor video games.
Literally like everywhere. If you were American you could replace that with baseball or American football or basketball, or from somewhere else it could be cricket or rugby or something. Regardless of where you are in the world, it’d be harder to not stumble into something sports related than to avoid them. You could go to wartorn Haiti 0.0001 seconds after a hurricane and an earthquake and there’d be groups of people playing soccer on the rubble.
You can repeat it as much as you want. I’m not sure what your argument is when you say they’re “fundamentally different” – in what relevant way, exactly? There is no more benefit or engagement or whatever that you get from watching people play sports compared to watching people play games. Watching someone else kick a ball around for sport, it’s not exactly a unique experience from watching someone else play finger twister on their keyboard in a game. They’re both literally just pixels on a screen and take the exact same processing power and thinking.
There are differences obviously, like when you watch sports it’s usually because you’re addicted to whatever corporate team comes from your city/state/province/country, not to watch ball go weee or admire skill or have esoteric analyses of the gameplay, but the latter reasons still exist to some extent. Vice versa for games – usually you don’t watch games for the brainless esports competitive tribalism, but it’s still a big part of the culture.
there’s a difference between a sport and a media designed to be consumed by the masses
This implies that sports aren’t specifically designed to be consumed by the masses. Sports are like, the epitome of braindead mass appeal. Everyone can do it, they’ve existed as an activity of the average person for tens of thousands of years. You could overthrow a small democracy using the chaos that soccer team fanboys generate throughout the year. I don’t think there’s a single person on this planet who doesn’t know who Messi is
Sports are far from inaccessible to an able-bodied person unless they’re trying to do it seriously competitively and they’ve been optimized for widespread appeal
Haha yeah. Soon after becoming a linguist your first realization is how little everyone else knows about or cares to know about linguistics. Btw I edited to add a little more information if you’re interested.
Þorn was in use since Fuþark (Germanic runes) but wasn’t used to write Anglo-Saxon until around the 8th century. It died out after the printing press came into use, usually imported from France (or Germany or something occasionally) and not using some characters found in English at the time. Because of the lack of a Þ/þ key, typers started to use “Y” as a substitute (which is why you see e.g. “ye olde” instead of “the olde”). Eventually þorn just disappeared and people used the spellings using “th”. A similar thing happened to Yogh (Ȝ/ȝ), where it was substituted for by “Z” (With e.g. “MacKenȝie” yielding “MacKenzie” instead of “MacKenyie”) until it disappeared and spellings using “y”/“gh” (or “j”/“ch” when appropriate) replaced spellings using “ȝ”.
Ðæt (Ð/ð/đ) was mostly replaced by þorn by Middle English so it didn’t get to be slain by the printing press. Wynn (Ƿ/ƿ) was replaced by “uu”/“w”/“u” by Middle English too. Ash (Æ/æ) didn’t die off, in large part because it was available on many printing presses of the time due to its usage in French and Latin, but it became obsolete for English words and was mostly used to replace “ae” in loanwords (especially from Latin and Greek).
There were some other funny things in Old English & Middle English orthography; like omitting n/m and writing a macron over the preceding vowel to indicate the sound (like “cā” instead of “can”), in the same way that it occured in Latin/Latinate languages which lead to “ñ” and “ã”/“õ” in Spanish/Portuguese/Galician.
You would HATE being a person who could read in the Middle English era. There was no standardized spelling, people used many different conventions/regional spellings, and it was mostly either phonetic spelling or random French bullshit. Also some earlier writers used really conservative spelling to emulate Old English. It was the wild west out there.
For example, here’s a (not comprensive) list of the variant spellings you may see for each second person pronoun:
Singular Nominative 2P:
thou, thoue, thow, thowe, thu, thue, þeu, þeou, thouȝ, thugh, thogh, ðhu; þou, þoue, þow, þowe, þu, þue, þouȝ, þugh, þogh, þo
(after alveolars and in contractions): tou, towe, touȝ, tu, to, te
Singular Objective 2P:
the, thee, thei, thi, thie, thy, ðe, de, þeo, þhe, yhe, ye, þe, þee, þi, þy
(after alveolars and in contractions): te
Singular Genitive, Dative, and Possessive 2P:
(usually before consonants): thi, thy, thei, they, yhi, yi, þhi; þei, þey, þy
(usually before vowels and “h”): thin, thyn, thine, thyne, thien, thyen, thein, theyn, thinne, yin; þin, þyn, þine, þyne, þinne; þines
(female referent): þinre, þire, þinen
(after “t” or “d”): ti, ty, tin, tyn, tine, tines
Plural Nominative 2P:
ye, yee, yeȝ, yhe, yie, iye, iȝe, hye, hie; ȝe, ȝee, ȝhe, ȝie, ȝeo; ge, gie, geo
Plural Objective 2P:
you, yow, youe, yowe, yo, yoe, yogh, yau, yaw, yeu, yew, yhu, yu, yw, yhow, yhou; ȝou, ȝow, ȝouȝ, ȝowȝ, ȝowe, ȝo, ȝu, ȝw, ȝuw, ȝue, ȝiou, ȝeu, ȝew, ȝewe, ȝau, ȝaw, ȝhou, ȝiu, ȝeou, ȝehw, ȝhowe; gou, gu, giu, geu, geau; ou, owe, eou, eow, eow, eo, eu, euwȝ, æu, hou, heou, heu
Plural Genitive & Dative 2P:
your, youre, yowr, yowre, ȝour, ȝoure yowyr, yowur, yor, yur, yure, yeur, yhure, yhour, yhoure; ȝowyr, ȝowur, ȝor, ȝore, ȝur, ȝure, ȝiore, ȝhour, ȝhoure, ȝaure, ȝiure, ȝiwer, ȝeur, ȝeure, ȝeuer, ȝeuwer, ȝewer, ȝewere; gur, gure, giur, giure, giuor, giuer, giuwer, giwer; ihore, ihoire, iure, eour, eoure, eouer, eouwer, eouwere, eower, eowwer, eore, eur, eure, euwer, euwere, eowrum, æure, our, oure, or, ore, ouer, ouwer, ouwere, ower, owur, hour
(early ME): þinen (genitive), þinum (dative), þirum (dative fem.)
Plural Possessive 2P:
youres, yourez, yours, youris, yurs, yowres, yowris, yowrys, yourn, youren; ȝours, ȝoures, ȝouris, ȝourys, ȝowers, ȝores, ȝures, ȝuris, ȝhurs, ȝourn, ȝouren; eowræs
You can find a lot more about Middle English spellings in LALME (A Linguistics Atlas of Late Mediæval English) (electronic version here)
Some of the more innovative spellings come from Northern Middle English/Northumbria (northern England and southern Scotland, though the dialects of the latter would largely split off and develop mostly on its own in the early stages of Middle English and become Scots) and to a lesser extent Midlands Middle English/Mercian, in large part due to significant past influence of North Germanic/Scandinavian languages; i.e., Old Norse, which was somewhat mutually intelligible with Old English and caused/progressed both the loss of inflections and the formation & solidification of Modern English syntax (in particular, Old English syntax shifted to become near-identical to Old Norse syntax; Old English also entirely lost inflection of grammatical gender, grammarical case, etc. and adopted many core vocabulary of Old Norse). Those changes happened primarily to facilitate communication with vikings in the Danelaw, since Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians were very eager to communicate with each other; things like declensions were very different in the two languages (the 12 different declensions of “the” probably weren’t fun to deal with for Scandinavians), so Old English speakers started omitting or simplifying them, and they mostly died off in (early) Middle English. English also completely lost dual pronouns (pronouns with exactly 2 referents). Word order was primarily SVO in Old Norse, so Old English’s relatively liberal word order (or lack of consistent word order) was simplified/regularized significantly to be more SVO.
Southern Middle English – the dialects of West Saxon and Kent – were significantly more conservative (partly due to having next to no influence from Norse). Those are where many more conservative spellings are from. The West Saxon dialects were the most influential/dominant (especially due to the Kingdom of Wessex’ great power) until the Norman Conquest, when East Midlands English (especially around London) took over that role.
Southern American English & Maritime Canadian English varieties were both primarily based on more southern English varieties – specifically, the time’s London English and West Country English. Appalachian English was also heavily influenced by Scottish English and the English of northern England. Canadian English in general was based on both Southern and Midlands English. Meanwhile, New England’s English was primarily derived from East Midlands dialects. Generally, dialects derived from the time’s West Country English are significantly more conservative and more similar to the general speech of ~15th century England, while more Midlands (of the time) influenced American and Canadian varieties are similar to standard ~17-18th century English. Dialects influenced by the time’s Scottish English and Northern English also generally contain a lot more conservative Anglic constructions – modern Appalachian/Southern American English varieties and modern Scottish/Northern varieties share a large amount of vocabulary and other features which were lost in other dialects.
Standard varieties of Modern British English are comparatively generally significantly more innovative and don’t share many features with Middle & Early Modern English varieties – general British English started diverging greatly from most other English dialects around the mid-to-late 18th century and early 19th century. This is also a reason why Australia and New Zealand English have a lot of features which seem to only partially agree with other English varieties. For example, the trap-bath vowel split, which was partially completed in Australia and is present in certain words, but not all words, and has variation in some words. When Australia was being colonized, Southern English varieties had recently begun undergoing the split, and it was considered a “Cockneyism” until Received Pronunciation was formed in the late 19th century and embraced it; it wasn’t fully progressed until around that time, which is why New Zealand English (which came from immigrants in the mid 19th century) mostly agrees with Southern English on those vowels.
I think he is making a joke that OP is, in fact, the bot
Or maybe he’s just bullying OP for circlejerking so hard and giving himself a pat on the back as a Lemmy user
they’re filthy communists i tell ya
Small/Medium-sized Business
Maybe access to connected devices (e.g. your computer components or the phone you have plugged in to your computer)
Brains transmit/change state (a.k.a. think) using electricity. It’s basically a flesh computer. You can’t read thoughts without being able to measure the brain’s electrical/chemical activity. If you had any theoretically possible mind-reading (and by extension mind-controlling) technology, it would still need to physically connect to your neurons or something…
That being said, I don’t imagine it’d be too hard for sci-fi future folk to stick a chip in every newborn’s brain from the get-go. But that’s a future too far from now, we’ll all be dead by then probably.