you do know that for example the Nordic European countries have a histroy of being social democratic and are based on the walfare state, and both for example Norway and Denmark are historically social democratic countries, and both tends to fight about being "the happiest contries in the world" as well as highest GDP per capita and so on.... basically, my question to you is - do know what socialism is?

Oh, oh, I know what it is! A topic not allowed on the GOG forums :P.

Or is someone trying to get this thread locked on purpose? Good job then.

Yup i do , how are those more socialist than my country? All I see they are historically less socialist, no wonder they are at better position.

and that's why I question wheter you know what socialsims is.... Norway, for example, is an histroically socialist contry. It's first political party was simply called "Left", and it has been under the labour party for many, many years. It is just recent there has been a right swing

edit - and most countries have socialism ingrained into the core fundamentals. The welfare state is arguably a socialist ideal.... heck, even the UK's second largest party is a socialist party

True I'll be more careful. Thx for the vid ill watch it.

Petersons a professional victim and BSer. I mean I can respect his "professional" opinion that people should clean their room, the rest is nonsense that's meant to sound intellectual.

People, these terms mean different things to different people. If you want to discuss it, you need to be more specific.

Otherwise these terms could be replaced by any random words or nonsense for the same effect.

As kohlrak pointed out we can't discuss this here, sorry.

I'm not saying you can't discuss the problems, i'm just trying to warn you that you need to take notice when certain individuals are taking you down a path.

I'm at the point where, given the fact that divorcing politics from things in any tangible way is impossible, that i'm not particularly afraid of the "no political talk" rule, since it, inherently, means we cannot discuss anything. In fact, you'll likely end up engaged with these people, regardless, but what i'm advising is you don't reply to any post without "zooming out" and seeing "the big picture." What is it that they're actually trying to do, outside of simply disagreeing? Are they trying toget you into a semantics battle which rarely goes anywhere, 'cause no one will ever agree to terms? Are they trying to get you to take the argument to a more personal level to get you flaming? Etc. Don't fall for the game. Odds are, most 3rd party people are going to see what's going on better than you (since they're not personally invested in the personal attacks, as they are not you), since that's really who you care about convincing, anyway (otherwise, why speak with people whom have no intention of changing their mind or coming forth in good faith with their actual opinions?).

There is one significant hole in the rule: Political discussion that is directly related to video games *is* allowed. Hence, we can discuss video games on this forum, without having to divorce it from politics.

I was told otherwise by staff, but that's ignoring the fundamental issue that these things tend to have very, very movable goalposts. I had a similar issue on the egosoft forums where a user was coming after me and other users by virtue of our political affiliations, engaging in obvious ad hominems. However, I was in the wrong for mentioning it when the double standard became obvious. It's always the fluffy space in rules where bias shows up.

I'll take a "politically neutral" (if such a thing truly exists) example. I was on a particular discord server for a particular political youtuber. We were having a discussion, and someone decided they wanted to talk about foot fetishes. When i said i wasn't interested, a few users (especially one female in particular) insisted in trying to pull the discussion harder into that topic. This female user and I had already occasionally discussed things (not what most people reading are likely thinking) in "DM"s, so it didn't take long for the conversation with her, in particular, to end up private. When i said that it was probably improper to be discussing her own personal sexual fetish with her, she expressed "well, see, I'm not trying to talk about you kissing my feet, but instead your girlfriend's feet." I've been in this situation one too many times before, so i naturally nipped it in the bud. But, let's, for the sake of argument, say that it continued. How long until the next argument was "well, it's not cheating if you pretend i'm her" or "what does your girlfriend think about this?" or something like that (she was already saying "you should go ahead and try it" and things like that, even though my position on the conversation itself at that point was clear)? Generally, such people are alot more nuanced than that, but I think you get my point.

Evil doesn't exist. Good doesn't exist. People exist. Hammers exist. I hammer people.

I tend to play Dirty Harry types in video games who break society's rules but are very ruthless when it comes to punishing what they see as evil. I see this as a fantasy though, like the Dirty Harry or James Bond movies themselves, and it is not how I personally see the world. If Dirty Harry actually existed, I'd probably call him a fascist and ask for him to be prosecuted.

In the broader sense of world crafting, I definitely prefer moral greys. When a game is too black and white, good versus evil, I tend to roll my eyes a lot. Especially an RPG where you make dialog choices. Fallout 3 for example is very much "I'll help you free of charge!" or "I'll kill you for talking to me!" with very little between them, which was lame.

I think it's worth asking if such scenarios really are "grey" rather than a case of "priorities." This is what makes characters interesting in many games: when the heroes, villains, and everyone in between makes their moral cases for their decisions. Obviously, Dirty Harry is a cop because he believes in the law, however his personal inclinations have priority over his actions rather than the law. Some might describe him as "chaotic good." Compare this to, say, Emperor Palpatine, whom clearly has the law on his side, but has an open disregard towards anything resembling a moral compass.

As a result, the difference in premise between Fallout 3 and New Vegas are crucial. In 3, there's really no rightful faction, and neither side is really presented as "law." In new vegas, this is the "NCR" as the "lawful faction," while "the legion" is also a "lawful faction," but attempts to base itself in morality. You also have the House faction as being "lawful," as well, but he clearly has certain interests in mind with a disregard for morality (i'd argue he's not all that different from the legion). The chaotic faction is, well, the only one that hints at morality (but, even then, it's more neutral than "good"). As far as Bethesda is concerned, The Elder Scrolls presents far, far more interesting scenarios, because they do a good job at convincing you of their side of the argument prior to exposing their corruption (sometimes the other way around, as is the case with the main antagonists of the games).

EDIT: I think now would be a good time to point out that the resounding message of these games and movies seems to be that "lawful inevitably becomes evil." Look at "The Dark Knight," for example. "You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain:" lawful-good either dies, or you inevitably face the choice between chaotic-good (Batman) or lawful-evil (Harvey Dent).

And i think this goes to the heart of the "meta convo" we seem to be having: we'll always be tempted to the alure of the "lawful good" approach, but society (inevitably law) either eventually changes to adapt to pressures to protect itself which is manipulated by evil to make society evil, or it fails to make changes which makes it an evil. We can easily target the "chaotic evil" people that make up the "other side," but choosing between "chaotic good" and "lawful evil" are often really hard. Simply look at the political compass, and it's not hard to identify the "lawful" vs "chaotic." Everyone will, however, argue on whether left or right is "good," and vice versa. The question, fundamentally, on individualism becomes whether or not you believe "your guy" will inevitably become the next "Joseph Stalin" or "Adolph Hitler" that was someone's "lawful good." Do you honestly believe that you won't inevitably end up on the wrong side of the argument? Is it not better to advocate for a world in which "chaotic good" and "chaotic evil" have trouble becoming "lawful evil"?

that sounds so obvious familiar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqLxv8pyLhY