The only downside is that the participants need to be familiar enough with their chosen game to do a randomizer which means roping in casual players is difficult.

Casual players can be fine with some games. Some actually become easier with Archipelago (e.g. Noita, Risk of Rain 2) since you’re getting meta-progression between runs that normally wouldn’t be there. Others though are especially punishing for new players (Doom comes to mind - you have to be pretty intimately familiar with the levels. There’s keys hidden in secret areas sometimes, for example, and ammo can be very scarce.)

The app I was using was making it look like everything I was replying to was from the same poster, when in fact it was not. I’ve already apologized for that error.

The only circumstance under which I would support a revolution is if the government simply ceases to function (which it may, now, under Trump - who knows? But I don’t wish to bank on that possibility, nor do I wish to cause a non-functioning government simply to justify a revolution; that’s no better than Republicans grinding everything to a standstill then claiming that their ability to do so is evidence that the government isn’t working.) The pragmatic stance is to vote for the better of the candidates who can reasonably win elections while directing effort towards changing the reasons why we only have two candidates to choose from.

Revolution that isn’t supported by the majority of people is simply imposing a viewpoint on people who do not want it, and even if it would ultimately be better for them in the long run, it’s no better than Christian Nationalists trying to impose their viewpoint on everyone else.

If it is supported by the majority of people, it should be able to be resolved via the democratic process. What’s stopping that right now is the two-party system that we’re stuck in, and that can’t be resolved without voting reform, so that’s where I’m choosing to direct my efforts. It’s not that it will single-handedly change society, but it’s the first step in a process that will, theoretically, allow new, more progressive and left-leaning parties to rise to relevance.

There have been multiple states that have had ranked-choice voting on their ballots (including mine), but they largely haven’t passed, so I would argue that yes, it is feasible to achieve it without revolution, but thus far it seems that people don’t understand why it’s needed (and therefore it’s a matter of getting the word out and raising awareness), or they simply disagree with it and want to maintain the status quo (and if that’s honestly the majority opinion, and it’s not just a perception or information problem, then so be it - that just means that we’re in a minority and we shouldn’t be forcing the majority to bend to our viewpoint any more than they should be forcing us to bend to theirs.).

Look, I think we agree on a lot of things. I support many socialist views; capitalism is an awful system, corporate greed and income inequality and money in politics are some of the biggest problems with society and some of the biggest inhibitors to change. However, I don’t think communism is a viable solution. In my opinion, the ideal solution would still allow accumulation of personal wealth, but would distribute wealth based on how much good a person has brought to society, rather than on how much of a sociopath they’re willing to be to get it. I believe most people are greedy and I believe most people are motivated by personal gain moreso than anything else. Not everyone, obviously, but most people, and I think the only way we’re going to get people to abandon the ‘Fuck you, got mine’ attitude is by rewarding behaviors we want to reinforce, which capitalism obviously does not do.

I said I wasn’t going to reply again, and I’m going to mostly stick to that, but I do want to issue a self-correction for one thing.

I was reading this thread on an app that doesn’t do a good job of differentiating different posters, and I was replying to a few different people and (incorrectly) attributing some of the more inflammatory things I was reading to you. Now that I’m looking at it on a PC, I can see that it was actually multiple people, so I apologize for that. Of the people I was replying to, you were the least objectionable, but we still have fundamental differences of opinion that we will not be able to resolve here.

Your ‘plan’ is not a plan so much as a general set of vague guidelines. My ‘plan’, with the same degree of validity, is to (continue to) support my local community, work towards conversions to better voting systems, and try to weather the next four years while continuing to take a pragmatist’s stance on political candidates.

What I find insufferable about you and the majority of the vocal folk who share your views are that you don’t seem interested in actually having a conversation about your views. You’re all quite ready to put words in other peoples’ mouths and adopt a holier-than-thou attitude towards everyone, while not considering that many of us might share a lot of your views if you weren’t so damn militant about everything. We probably have quite a lot in common, but painting everyone who isn’t a marxist as a capitalist / fascist isn’t helping your cause, not in the slightest.

This will be the last thing I say here, so feel free to get your last word in.

This type of rhetoric is why I and many others just cannot take you folks or your views seriously.

I don’t care if they did or didn’t; I find them to be completely insufferable and have no desire to engage with them further.

I didn’t get Trump elected, lol.

And this right here is our unresolvable ideological difference. You refuse to consider that by not voting for the better option, you’re partially responsible for what we have now. Good luck with your revolution, I guess. We have nothing else to discuss.

What’s your plan B?

What’s yours? Since letting Trump get elected was apparently Step 1, what’s Step 2? Where are we going now? Come on, fill us in.

Or, alternately, stop putting words in other peoples’ mouths and consider that what we have now is worse for everyone than the alternative would have been.

This wasn’t the Democrats being failed, it was the whole country being failed. It wasn’t about voting for the Democrats, it was about voting against Donald Trump, and there was only one way to effectively do that. Everyone who refused to do that got exactly what they voted for with Trump, whatever ends up happening, but rather than accepting that maybe this was the worst option, they’re just posting memes about how everyone didn’t push back against the democrats hard enough, so I doubt it’ll sink in.

It’s assumed that you already have a pear tree; the partridges are just being installed into your pre-existing tree. Don’t be greedy. Mature fruit trees are expensive.

One brother is on an Xbox One is on a PC One is on a steam deck with WiFi hotspot.

That’s going to be the limiting factor.

Are you specifically looking for something to play against each other? There’s some pretty good options for co-op games with crossplay, and that might make for a more friendly experience, but if you’re in the mood for something competitive, options are a little more limited.

Some potential options:

• Destiny 2
• Monster Hunter Rise
• The Ascent
• Borderlands 3
• Warframe
• Remnant 2

If you all had a PC, you’d have a lot more options. Maybe two of you should consider going in on a Steam Deck for Brother #3 for Christmas!

Not only WoW, but most old MMOs were built around being social experiences. The really old ones (Everquest, most notably) were basically chat rooms with games attached. The gameplay was very slow, and you relied heavily on other players to progress, so you spent a lot of time just chatting with people, either in zone chat or in groups or in guilds. Over time, you started to recognize the same names showing up in the same places, or as you progressed, the same players would be progressing at the same pace so you’d keep seeing them as you moved from zone to zone.

It was also a lot easier to build friendships for otherwise socially awkward people. You had an immediate common interest and common goal (advancing in the game), so you had common ground to talk about, and a common activity to enjoy together, but during the downtime, conversation would often shift to other things - where you lived, how old you were, what your hobbies were… so you’d get to know people ‘outside the game’, too.

Nowadays, WoW and other MMOs are much more fast-paced, and much more solo play oriented. There’s still group-required content, but it’s very action-heavy; you don’t have a lot of time that you’re just sitting around chatting, and groups are much more short-term things. 15 or 20 minutes, whereas once upon a time, it was 3+ hours as standard.

I met my oldest friend in an MMO about 24 or 25 years ago… we accompanied each other to a few different games over the years, and now we aren’t playing anything together, but we still talk. I flew across the country to attend his wedding a couple years ago. Similarly, I met my wife in WoW. Our first “date” was killing bugs in Silithus together. We’ve been together for about 18 years.

Old (as in, early-late 2000s) MMOs generated a lot of friendships; this isn’t at all an uncommon story to hear from people who played them at that time.

I like ignoring the bullets and just reading the rest of the text. “You may be at risk for throat cancer if you get checked now.”

Can’t get diagnosed with cancer if you never get checked!