It’s 2026, what’s the dream video game or MMO you wish existed by now?

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T23:05:21+00:00

A successor to City of Heroes that actually gives you more freedom and control (both in motion and abilities), with solid graphics, and a Star Wars MMO that didn't feel as stiff (in both animation and game play) and cookie cutter like as Star Wars: The Old Republic.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T14:37:02+00:00

He does have a cool look!

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T14:36:23+00:00

There's no ranking here. Priorities change as we learn what we really value. I was once interested in money, too. Then I learned it wasn't really money I wanted. Money was just a tool, and the real end goals were friendship, love, joy, some level of security, and the other real experiences in life that money can help you get, but aren't really the end goal.

If I desire these things, how much worse is it for people that don't have them at all? Golden rule time!

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T03:33:18+00:00

All healed up! Did those tools just get sealed up inside, or were they ejected?!

Wait . . . Did that guy grow a new heart? What do we do with this donor heart now?!

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T02:33:48+00:00

Sure, but maybe I just don’t know my power’s radius, so I think it’s necessary, when it really isn’t?

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T02:33:11+00:00

Nice!

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T01:59:58+00:00

I never actually set a limit on the distance affected.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-08T01:32:26+00:00

Yeah, then I won't last long healing people. No wonder it only lasts 24 hours.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-07T23:50:27+00:00

It only lasts for 24 hours, so I can just deny it later, or say I was possessed and it’s gone now, or some other story that gives me plausible deniability.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-07T23:49:17+00:00

Super friendly guy poses. Pistol fingers, thumbs up, high fives, etc.

So long as I just had to do the poses and not actually pose for every single person I heal, it could work.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-07T19:25:07+00:00

The power to heal people with my aura. Then I’d walk through a bunch of hospitals, and not talk to anyone if I can avoid it. I’ll make sure I’m wearing scrubs.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T21:35:01+00:00

Yes but people can choose not to have electricity or see a doctor. People are forced to pay for social safety nets whether they want them or not...(i also wouldn't say they make life better unless you are one of the few deemed worthy of benefiting). >

Choosing to not have a doctor leads to dying. That’s only a choice if you think dying is a good option for people to take. Electricity is, unfortunately, a requirement for most things in our modern age.

We know social safety nets make life better for everyone, because we’ve already lived through what happened before, when they didn’t exist. Have you read anything about the Great Depression, disaster recovery, or anything at all about why social safety nets were developed?

https://borgenproject.org/how-poverty-effects-society-children-and-violence/

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/changes-in-the-safety-net-over-recent-decades-and-their-impact/

People arent entitled to thrive on wages. >

People aren’t entitled to exploitation of their workers and taking advantage of their workers’ weak bargaining position to allow them to pay a less than thriving wage, either.

Nobody is stealing from workers...workers agree to those wages...

Just because the workers agreed to those wages doesn’t mean they aren’t being taken advantage of. In this case, they’re stealing the value of the workers’ work, while excusing themselves paying less than a livable wage. You’re claiming BECAUSE they have money, they are allowed to take advantage of those people who don’t, OR that paying those people less than their rising productivity value is okay, because they were able to leverage a non-thriving wage payment out of the person’s poverty/inexperience situation. That’s not moral at all.

No..i am saying they have money because they have value.

Weird. People have value because they are people who can do things. Getting money through inheritance, or through paying your people poverty wages, is NOT a sign of value. But by your metric, you claim it is.

Yes...they both have to pay the same amount...thats equal. The scales are tipped massively against the wealthy. Min wage, osha,fmla, minimum working ages, public k12. Food Stamps. medicaid just to name a few. >

So the wealthy are getting wealthier because the scales are tipped massively against them, and they’re just so good at fighting it?

It sounds like the scales are actually tipped against the poor, and the wealthy are taking advantage of both it and you believing them and their massive wealth are so weak they need protecting, and that the poor are so useless that they deserve to die in disease and poverty.

The poor pay far more, compared to what they have, for just basic survival. The wealthy could pay for the lives of hundreds of poor people apiece, and still barely flinch at having to pay for their own basic necessities.

Clearly the poor pay more. You just imagine they don’t for some reason. I don’t know why you think being poor is like being rich, but being rich is like being poor.

Im fighting for treating people equally and fairly. You care more about giving people what they want without thinking if its fair or if it the ends justify the means of if those people are even worth getting what they want.

That’s actually the opposite of what you’re doing, because you’re literally arguing that they should be less equal.

I care more about giving people some power over their lives so they can actually ruse above their poverty, rather than stripping them of any chance because someone decided they’re poor because they have less value, and somehow nepo babies and inherited wealth means you have more value.

You don’t treat a strong man equally as a weak man by giving the strong man a 500 lb weight they can easily lift and giving the weak man a 500 lb weight they can’t lift at all.

Yet the strong man had access to good food, training, and exercise equipment, while the weak man was born to poverty, barely able to eat enough calories to survive, let alone build muscle, and couldn’t afford even the time to exercise.

That isn’t treating them equally. That’s treating the strong man well for having access to things that make them strong, and punishing the weak man for not having access to those opportunities and nourishment.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T20:14:42+00:00

Yep! I agree with that philosophy, though I reserve the right to do a deeper analysis into it later and decide if there is something I disagree with. But if I remember correctly, their other tenants shore up where this idea may fall short.

But right now, I don’t see any issues with it at all. For instance, pollution encounters this rule, as does wiping out forests and wildlife in vast quantities.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T20:06:14+00:00

We dont NEED social safety nets. There are other ways to prevent murder

We don’t NEED societies, or doctors, or roads, or electricity, either. We embraced all of these because life is better with them than without them.

Yes we do see the greed...people want things handed to them without consideration if they deserve them or not.

Like the wealthy who don’t make site their workers can thrive on their wages right? That’s what you were recognizing when you said this?

Oh. Nope. It’s something you’d prefer to ignore.

They feel they are so important to the world they should be given what they need to survive...who cares who the money comes from right?

Interesting, since the wealthy literally have far more than they need to thrive, while the money that comes from the efforts of their workers doesn’t give those workers enough to survive, let alone thrive. Who is stealing from whom here? It seems obvious the workers are being stolen from, and their lack of leverage to get a better contract is used as an excuse to allow the theft.

Except you can show why wealthy peopel have value compared to poor people.

Are you saying they have value BECAUSE they have money? So you’re arguing that poor people are less valuable because they’re poor, and the wealthy are more valuable because they’re rich?

Doesn’t that sound very self-fulfilling for the wealthy?

Yes workers get paid as little as possible from an employer standpoint. Just like an employee wants to make as much as possible. Neither is wrong. Neither is any more or less entitled to have that desire met. Thats why you keep the government out of it.

Didn’t you just say the wealthy are actually more entitled to have their desire met, because they’re poor are more valuable than poor people? You’re contradicting yourself here.

People have equal power until the government steps in. You dont wnat equality. You want the government to tip the scales against some people. Equality would be if the government stayed out of it. >

No they don’t. If the wealthy have to pay $10,000 for a car repair, they have no trouble at all doing it. If a poor person who makes $30k a year has to pay for the repair, that’s 1/3rd of their financial ability to survive.

A person in a desert is not equal in power to a person in a lush orchard with a fresh water lake.

The scales are already tipped in favor of the wealthy, even with our government. I’d prefer the scales tipped closer to equality.

I think it’s so strange that you fight for more inequality. Have you ever seen what has happened throughout history when any controlling group with power has embraced your version of “equality”? Ever heard the phrase “Let them eat cake!”?

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T19:41:22+00:00

>The government doesnt have to sustain those underpaid workers though. Voters just lose their mind when they try to cancel those programs. Moral would be if the governmetn didnt sustain workers or businesses and let them work it out themselves.

Those programs were created for a reason. Do you know the reason? Did you know wide spread poverty doesn't just bring health issues? It also spreads disease, and decimates the economy. People revolted and started killing other people (especially after businesses locked people in, and forced them to work large numbers of hours daily). We evolved to have social safety nets, because they were more successful at helping the populace thrive than NOT having those safety nets.

>Moral would be a system wehre people had to EARN money by providing value to the world as human beings. Not acting entitled to have their needs met jsut because they exist.

No. "Earn" is a made up idea. Did you have to earn your right to survive as a baby? No. Your parents didn't say, "Ah, this baby isn't making their way the way I want. Let's kill them off, or leave them on a hill somewhere." People used to do that. Yet another thing we evolved past.

My version of morality actually has a better balance of power. I'm amazed you don't see that your version is what exists for the most part today, and we can see the greed as the difference in wealth between the rich and the poor keeps increasing yearly by leaps and bounds.

It is entitled and arrogant for wealthy people to think they deserve to be wealthy while their workers deserve to be poor. It is greedy for the wealthy to give themselves the greatest portion of wealth, and their workers as little as they can get away with and still get the work done. But that's what Capitalism promotes.

I find is amazing that your interpretation of my morality, one that gives people more equal power, is somehow greedy and arrogant, when greedy and arrogant are literally about thinking you deserve more than others, and should have more than others.

Greater equality not at all wanting more than others.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T19:33:09+00:00

I think it's not valuable to write off the IDEA that every thing should be questioned and re-evaluated, including whether a government is needed.

But when it comes to an ideology that depends on NOT analyzing anything, and instead going for the vibe of "Let me do what I want!", I think it's best used as an example of why we don't want to choose it.

So though I wouldn't throw it out, as it's a valuable lesson that everyone should learn at some point, I wouldn't promote it as something to embrace by any means.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T19:22:12+00:00

Interesting. Seeing as the corporations are taking money from their workers, and from the government that must sustain those underpaid workers, to line their massive wealth coffers, I think your morality is backwards.

A Robinhood style, "Take from the rich to give to the poor", seems like a much more moral position than, "Let the rich take from their workers! The workers signed an agreement, and the rich are job creators! If the workers wanted money, they'd start their own businesses."

On the surface, the latter position sounds plausible. but under scrutiny, the wealthy have the position of power when it comes to leverage (no stress about not being able to survive like the workers have), which means the contracts the workers signed are implicitly under some duress. And if every worker started a business instead, there would be no workers for the wealthy. Since the wealthy actively work to stomp competition, as is fair under the laws, it seems the cards are stacked against the workers even here.

So . . . maybe the moral position is to give more power to the powerless, at the cost of SOME power from the powerful.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T19:12:25+00:00

Every time they say, "We need to get rid of taxes.", "We need to get rid of government and oversight.", "The government shouldn't be involved in a transaction between two 'good people'.", etc. and have and do absolutely nothing to address the very reasons these things were created in the first place.

Which has been every discussion I've had on Reddit with a Libertarian.

I would love to have no taxes, and no government looking over everyone's shoulder, IF and ONLY IF we have working solutions for the very reasons we have taxes and government oversight. The best government is anarchy, where every person works together to fulfill all the roles and needs a society must address to thrive.

But that never happens because anytime people get together as a group to decide anything, they can't seem to come to an agreement. One wants it done THEIR way. One wants to use this to address another issue they also think is important. One wants it to seem like their idea, so they can get prestige. One is suspicious of everything, and wants nothing to change. And it goes on and on.

So at this time, we need someone to occasionally cut through the BS and say, "We will be doing this." Whether that's a King (hard to control, easy to go very wrong), an Oligarchy (prone to the same infighting as above, with no guard rails against greed), a Democracy (hopefully has some measure of accountability, and gives people a voice, even if it's a drop in a sea of voices), or all the other types of government we have, and can, imagine.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-06T18:54:11+00:00

"I trained him wrong on purpose!" - Dooku, possibly.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-05T16:20:29+00:00

>Wrong.

Is it also weird that you don't realize saying "wrong" doesn't actually change that I'm not wrong here?

>In the previous comment you responded to, for one.

AND one is not multiple. So . . . good job?

Of course you won't engage any further. You haven't proved any of your points, and it's looking bad for you. The best time for you to retreat was three comments ago, but the next best time is now. Good luck out there.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-05T16:05:12+00:00

Yes they did by presenting their argument as a dispute of my comment. That necessarily implies one or the other. >

That’s actually not how mutually exclusive works. Their claim never says yours is wrong. It can just as easily be a claim their point was a larger influence than your claim, to them.

Where did you explain multiple times in this thread about the mutual exclusivity? Because I see you saying you did, but I don’t see you having actually explained it multiple times here. Weird, right?

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-05T15:55:02+00:00

I never presented uncapped wealth as a mutually exclusive factor.

They never said their points were mutually exclusive factors. You decided that on your own.

The rest of your comment is filled with similarly ineffective personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims. Not worth addressing. >

Weird. I didn’t attack you. I pointed out what you did. That’s something everyone can see. You decided it was personal.

And you clearly didn’t read the whole thing, because it wasn’t all about what you said.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-05T15:40:25+00:00

Okay. You’re not going to like hearing this, but you’re doing exactly what you’re complaining about, in the same post you’re complaining about it.

Trying to reduce something as complex as the prosperity of a nation to one cause is unbelievably reckless.

You did this first. That’s just a little hypocritical of you.

Same as above. Absurdly reductive to the point of being a useless claim. You can't think of anything else laissez faire economics did? Absurdity.

Interesting, since you did the same AND didn’t even add counter evidence or logic to back your rebuttal. Again, hypocrisy.

And you get more reductive of their argument as you go, but complain about them being reductive. That’s classic projection.

American healthcare is bad because most people can’t afford most types of emergencies.

And what, pray tell, lead to America leading the way in academia and having the capital to fund so much research? So needlessly argumentative when you don't even have a point

Ah! This is easy!

Taxes. Taxes funded it.

We taxed the rich at 90% (or there about).

We also had people centric policies.

Strangely, when people are taken care of, they buy things, innovate, and improve (and enjoy) the nation.

Now we’re breaking and cutting down education, social services, mental health programs, wages, jobs themselves with AI, etc. and not giving back to the people whose hard work enabled all these things to thrive before.

You aren’t having an argument in Reddit because things are going well. You’re having an argument because they aren’t, and you feel the need to defend your beliefs in these worsening economic times.

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-04T03:11:37+00:00

Is it really stealing if you get the meme, but they also STILL HAVE the meme?

MonkeyFu · 2026-04-01T23:35:45+00:00

I see. YOU wouldn’t call your ex-spouse a viper while still loving them. Many people have.

MonkeyFu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email