SMITE isn’t a shooter, though. Overwatch 2 killed Overwatch and left an empty space. I don’t see a problem if two games (or more) try to fill it. I hope they are fun.
That said, it shouldn’t be Valve’s only focus if fans are expecting different games from them.
I’m from the 90s and I’ve been catching some trends thanks to TikTok and YouTube. Exactly what you said, new videos and keep jumping to suggested videos. Also, read the comments, people often have recommendations (you can even ask and you’ll get some new musicians).
We are already here.
I’ve heard of Goldfish and Vidzy.
I believe they are talking about a specific community that has formed over TikTok, a very anticapitalist and cosmopolitan one, and not about the platform itself.
If your algorithm is favoring that content, your short videos will be full of people talking about all things wrong in our global state of affairs; alternatives and temporal solutions (that happen to harm corporations, ironically because the information is becoming popular thanks to one, so I guess it’s the ladder to get to the rooftop); global situations that are not talked or barely talked on regular news (like Congo, Palestine, etc.); the truth behind Western propaganda and lies, especially the ones against populations and ideologies (e.g., “this country doesn’t prosper because they’re [whatever]” vs “we exploited and condemn this country to scarcity for decades and lied about it”); etcetera. In my time there, I’ve learnt a couple things.
I know that these content creators will find another platform if TikTok goes down. Lemmy has shown me that social media can be free of corporations, but that’s something many people are not aware of yet, especially since the techy people that could explain it on TikTok are not there.
So… yeah, TikTok has some interesting sides content-wise. There’s even the rumor that this is one of the reasons they want it banned in the U.S.
I don’t want to fall into a slippery slope argument, but I really see this as the tip of a horrible iceberg. Seeing women as sexual objects starts with this kind of non consensual media, but also includes non consensual approaches (like a man that thinks he can subtly touch women in full public transport and excuse himself with the lack of space), sexual harassment, sexual abuse, forced prostitution (it’s hard to know for sure, but possibly the majority of prostitution), human trafficking (in which 75%-79% go into forced prostitution, which causes that human trafficking is mostly done to women), and even other forms of violence, torture, murder, etc.
Thus, women live their lives in fear (in varying degrees depending on their country and circumstances). They are restricted in many ways. All of this even in first world countries. For example, homeless women fearing going to shelters because of the situation with SA and trafficking that exists there; women retiring from or not entering jobs (military, scientific exploration, etc.) because of their hostile sexual environment; being alert and often scared when alone because they can be targets, etc. I hopefully don’t need to explain the situation in third world countries, just look at what’s legal and imagine from there…
This is a reality, one that is:
Putting hundreds of millions of people into a state of hopeless depression
Again, I want to be very clear, I’m not equating these tools to the horrible things I mentioned. I’m saying that it is part of the same problem in a lighter presentation. It is the tip of the iceberg. It is a symptom of a systemic and cultural problem. The AI by itself may be less catastrophic in consequences, rarely leading to permanent damage (I can only see it being the case if the victim develops chronic or pervasive health problems by the stress of the situation, like social anxiety, or commits suicide). It is still important to acknowledge the whole machinery so we can dimension what we are facing, and to really face it because something must change. The first steps might be against this “on the surface” “not very harmful” forms of sexual violence.
I liked Revolt.
Wow! Pranks from 2004 are ads in 2024.
Technically, Mexico has had only two presidents from a right-wing party. Before, they were from the centrist party. The current president is a very well known leftist.
The country was bombarded with religion for centuries, so maybe you are thinking of that, but even so, the majority support a version of religion that mixes a “social concern for the poor and political liberation for oppressed peoples” with spirituality. It is similar to the recent declarations of Pope Francis about Marxists and Christians having a common goal It is called liberation theology.
Also, Mexico tried to legalize drugs back in 1940. It was promoted by a psychiatrist that informed the government that substance abuse was a mental disorder, which was very progressive for the era. Here is the story.
Of course, if you dig deeper, you’ll know the United States basically coerced Mexico into criminalizing drugs again.
Around half the population still supports drug legalization, even after years of propaganda. The commenter below was shocked about abortion legalization. Abortion is legal in many places. Same-sex marriage is also legal, even in some more right-leaning states. A couple years ago, a transgender clinic with free care was opened in Mexico City. Similarly, free healthcare and many other welfare initiatives such as free education (including universities) are common and not negotiable for the average Mexican.
So, yeah, I guess you’ll find homophobic old people, religious nuts, or lately, U.S.-influenced right-wing supporters, but Mexico is overall progressive as I see it. Even historically:
Slave abolition was one of the first things Mexico did as an independent country, around 1810-1817. The first black president in 1829. Safe place for U.S. slaves to escape and live as free people during the 19th century. First native (indigenous) president in 1858. The Constitution has been protecting native populations’ rights since 1917. During the 20th century, there were big movements in favor of socialism (e.g., agrarian socialists called zapatistas, or students’ movements in the National Autonomous University of Mexico). The list goes on… The first woman president is probably happening this year.
I hope this puts things into perspective, and sorry for infodumping!
I disagree. Generally speaking, psychologists aren’t competent either. Psychiatrists at least know about the human body, its interactions, and psychopathology in depth. Psychologists study the things you mentioned, but many fail to study the biological parts and how deep psychopathologies can go.
Therefore, I’ve encountered many psychologists who think that all problems are caused by the environment, by inner (often cognitive) processes, etc. They fail to understand severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and regularly make one of two mistakes (if not both in different contexts): downplay the severity of psychosis and mania/hypomania or think the mildest symptom is psychosis or mania/hypomania.
Also, many psychologists I’ve known and seen lean into the antipsychiatry movement. This may not be a problem when treating, say, mild to moderate depressions of a certain reactive nature. They might advise not to take medication and, indeed, medication may not be necessary for these cases. But to do the same for endogenous recurrent depressions and, again, severe mental disorders is borderline clinical negligence.
Finally and in the same vein, many psychologists do not understand how dependent on the physiological are phenomena such as behavior and beliefs. They often picture our mental experience as mostly free, perhaps influenced by many factors (e.g., psychoanalysis), yet ultimately driven by ourselves. I disagree. I disagree not only because there are many scientific observations to the contrary, but because my own experience has been ever-changing by the silliest of things, like medication for physical illnesses, food, weather conditions, etc. Anecdote incoming: >!Traits that psychologists would try to explain away, treat in talk therapy, and solidify as part of my personality were mere consequences of the physiological and went away immediately after I stopped the causes. The average psychiatrist would find this obvious, while psychologists were often surprised.!<
If I may add, both psychiatrists and psychologists face a profound ignorance about the things they study. Psychology has tried to explain them, and in this effort it has created dozens of different and incompatible schools of thought (e.g., psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.). Psychiatrists are also at a loss in the definitive hows, and I should add there’s also dense theory behind it (it did not stop with Emil Kraeplin or Karl Jaspers). If you ask me, I wouldn’t consider one more scientific than the other just because one created more paradigms/theories; if anything, remaining observant and pragmatic sounds to me more scientific (in both disciplines), but that’s a whole new conversation…