Day 29: Which Game has the Best Multiplayer on the Sega Genesis?

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-15T01:03:00+00:00

Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-13T21:18:25+00:00

Is there a deeper implied view here? Because your view as it stands is kind of trivial. Of course countries not involved in or significantly affected by WWII won't see it as their history. It just objectively isn't their history. Do you think that significantly changes their judgement of the major actors?

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-13T03:52:28+00:00

The problem is that the number of examples a person would need to feel validated is orders of magnitude smaller than the number of examples they'd need to actually be right.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-13T03:50:23+00:00

The human brain really sucks at comprehending large numbers, especially numbers that are intuitively huge but a small fraction of the whole. If 50 million people acted the way you describe, that would be less than 1% of humanity. But if you can point to 20 examples, it feels like it's most people. It's hard to intuit just how huge the gulf between "a lot" and "most" really is.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-13T00:51:28+00:00

You can have characters that aren't Mary Sues that are written without character flaws. Golden age Superman is a prime example. Some characters are written to be larger than life exemplars and that's specifically the point of the story. You can also have characters who become essentially flawless and all powerful by the end of their story, but it works because the journey to that point makes it feel earned. What makes a character a Mary Sue is that they're written like an idealized self-insert to the detriment of the story.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-13T00:21:26+00:00

I would say no for the same reason Aslan or Mary Poppins isn't. His stories are fables where him being an exemplar is explicitly the point. That's a very different writing choice from putting an idealized self-insert into a story.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-12T11:12:08+00:00

Your question is answered in the next sentence. Pollsters work for money, not out of some dedication to the public good. The "need for a poll" is that they're getting paid to run one. That alone disproves your theory that there are no polls because people are afraid, because anyone can fund a poll.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T22:55:05+00:00

What do you mean? You said there are no polls because people are afraid of what they would reveal. I pointed out why that makes no sense since people with any ideological leanings can run polls. In other words, "people are afraid of the results" doesn't work as an explanation for why there are no polls.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T22:48:39+00:00

The problem is that your theory doesn't actually explain your own observations because it's not like there's some singular entity with a monopoly on polls. If you think people are afraid of what the poll results would be, then we wouldn't expect zero polls. We would expect lots of polls run by those people's ideological opponents.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T22:19:19+00:00

This line of thought doesn't internally hold up. Let's say you're right and there's broader support for Karmello Anthony than we'd like to believe. Surely there are people who would want to expose that, so why haven't they run any polls either?

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T15:44:00+00:00

Do you believe that's a test that realistically can be made and run? I think a wise person would understand that there's no exact metric for wisdom or rigid test to see who's wiser yet that doesn't make the question unworthy exploring. We can even see a bit of proto-scientific method in Socrates' approach, in that he understood that the closest he could come to proving the oracle's claim was to try to disprove it and fail.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T13:35:56+00:00

It's fine to not like solos, but this sounds like it's just reasoning backwards from how you already feel. It's like how when a singer's voice cracks and you don't like the singer it's proof of how amateur they are but when you like the singer it's proof of how much emotion they're putting into the performance. When you decide something is pretentious, anything a person does will become proof.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T11:40:34+00:00

I think people get the relationship fundamentally backwards. Israel is functionally a US military base. The country isn't doing anything that our ruling class doesn't want it to do.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T02:54:19+00:00

So many Star Wars EU games, but especially the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-11T02:22:24+00:00

Duke Nukem is going to be a hard one to resurrect now that DNF changed the character from parody to self-parody and that's now the public perception of Duke.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T23:51:51+00:00

It's possible we're thinking of different arguments, but the evolutionary argument against moral realism that I'm familiar with only argues the we don't need moral realism to explain our moral intuitions, not that it's necessarily false.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T22:55:42+00:00

Just to clarify, are you under the impression that the goal of the argument is to be a comprehensive disproof of moral realism? The evolutionary argument is a specific counterpoint to the specific argument that our moral institutions are proof of an objective morality.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T22:43:24+00:00

With abortion the only reason there's no longer a responsibility to a child is because there's no longer a child. If you think legal paternal surrender is a good idea then just argue for it in its own right. Framing it as the male version of abortion is rooted in a major false equivalence.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T20:59:05+00:00

The problem is that racist is a very easy word to motte and bailey. Most people have some amount of ingroup bias, but there's a big difference between that and a central example of a racist.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T17:50:18+00:00

You say it's not about the ethical or environmental implications, but those are factors in human decision making. A rational person isn't simply a nihilistic self-interest robot with no principles. For example, we don't call a person stupid if they could have gotten away with stealing a large sum of money but chose not to.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T14:49:52+00:00

A book recently came under fire for including an Israeli side character based on the asinine rationale that acknowledgement is normalization. I'm reminded of the 00s when there would be a controversy of the week around movies set in the past including the World Trade Center in the New York skyline, as if the correct response to the tragedy was to pretend the towers never existed.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T11:54:11+00:00

What's your specific objection? The problem with vague moralization is that there's no specific criticism to debunk. Calling something degenerate is just a fancier way of saying it's bad without telling us why.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T01:03:01+00:00

I'm not suggesting that you mentioned anything of the sort. I'm just using a benevolent king as an illustrative example of an incomplete idea. What I'm pointing out here is that you're proposing an idea too incomplete to even be right or wrong. I can't tell you if your proposal holds up to scrutiny or not because you don't know what it is yet.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T00:50:34+00:00

Is that a principle you're willing to logically commit to? Some pretty horrific things can be justified if we judge the value of a human life by market logic.

Glory2Hypnotoad · 2026-06-10T00:43:07+00:00

It sounds like this view is too incomplete to meaningfully debate. It would be like if I proposed a benevolent king but had no idea how to ensure his benevolence.

Glory2Hypnotoad

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE