Disclaimers and trigger warnings

The purpose of this mediocre and pseudo-philosophical diatribe of mine is to foster discussion.

I’ve come to understand that this is what Tildes is for. This isn’t a “platform” (I don’t think that I can even call it that) like Reddit, which has become like any other social media app, that is designed for retaining attention, make money from ads and in-app perks, and give people the means to build a following on the Internet.

As such, I’m proposing to you that we, well... discuss... something.

Now, we do discuss a lot of things in here, but it’s obviously more interesting to discuss hot button issues, am I right? I’m talking about those that we seem to be all be up in arms about these days. lol

I know that some of the topics that I will bring up can be very triggering to a lot of people.

I want you to know that I do not intend to harm nor hurt anyone with my words.

I spent hours (I’m not exaggerating) carefully crafting this, uh... “““essay””” of mine, to make sure that the words contained in it will inspire you to engage in a meaningful discussion by sharing your opinions in a polite and humble manner, think more deeply and nuanced about these issues, and perhaps (I can only hope) extend a hand to those who disagree with you.

When I wrote this piece, I did so feeling completely at ease. In my head, I heard my own words, as if I was having a dialogue with you all. I imagined sitting with you in a big circle, talking with you face-to-face. My tone was natural and calm, and I occasionally used a humorous tone (marked by every instance where I wrote “lol”, which always refers back to the sentence immediately preceding it). This is how I’d like you to imagine that I’m talking to you through these words, because that’s exactly what I’m doing. Even if my choice of words isn’t the best (for which I apologize upfront, if anything that I wrote offends you), then know that in no way did I write any of these words with an accusatory tone in mind. I hope that this visualization makes it easier for you to chew through the bits where you disagree with me.

Also, I was recently made aware that in some online circles, the use of italicized or bold formatting, is equivalent to CAPS LOCK, meaning, a way to express “loud screaming”. That is not how I use these formatting tools. I use italics for emphasizing certain words in my “speech”. Again, imagine that I’m speaking to you face-to-face. A natural part of my speech will be to give emphasis to certain words that are central to the point that I’m making. In writing, I emulate that effect via the use of italics. I hope that makes it clear what I mean. As for bold text, I just use it to highlight a point that I think is particularly important, and that I wish to be easy to find if you ever return to my essay.

(I keep calling this an “essay” for lack of a better term. If you can think of a better word, then please do let me know. I intend no offense to actual essayists. lol)

Finally, if you want to discuss scientific facts with me, then please do so, but know that I’m aiming more for a philosophical discussion. I will admit that, despite my best efforts throughout the years to read as much scientific literature as I can, I have been unable to memorize any studies, papers, or “facts” on any of these topics. I don’t know why that is. Maybe my IQ is too low. So, all of my arguments here will be 100% anecdotal. Either way, I don’t intend to make those of you who do want to cite research or link to news outlets uncomfortable, so feel free to do so. Just know that I will probably not have anything to reply to you in that case. I mean, if the research proves your point, then that ends the discussion, right? lol

More than anything, I’m good at asking thought-provoking questions (I think, I hope), and that’s what I came here to do.

I want to remind you that here on Tildes, there isn’t any “karma”, so I have nothing to gain from posting this (apart from some interesting discussions for a day or two), and have everything to lose.

And with that, I’d like to say that it was nice knowing all of you.

(Just in case I get banned. lol)

Introduction

Over the last few years, much has been said about the political polarization of society, particularly in the United States of America (though this has since spread to much of Europe and other places, I feel).

I often hear folks say that there used to be a time when people’s opinions did not vary so widely as they do today. Allegedly, the majority of the population held politically moderate beliefs that orbited the “center” of the isle. Also, allegedly again, there used to be a culture in which it was acceptable for people to “agree to disagree”.

I have heard from these people that all of this has radically changed. One can now simply not have moderate opinions on any topic anymore. One must pick a side and blindly adhere to it, 100%. It is also not possible (nor safe) to engage with the opposite safe, under any circumstances. There are only two camps: red and blue, right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, Christian and Atheist, carnivore and vegan, fossil fuels and green energy, Windows and Mac, PC and consoles.

The last two dichotomies are just a joke. lol

The more I think about this, the more I doubt if there ever has been a “golden age of tolerance” in “recorded” human history though. I say “recorded”, because as far back historically as we can look, I see that all that humanity has ever done is to be at war with itself.

Maybe back then, it made a bit more sense that we looked with suspicion upon each other, after all, we didn’t know three things:

1. That we all resided on the same globe.
2. That we’re all the exact same species.
3. That the planet can sustain all of us...

...if we properly steward its resources.

But now we do know. We do know how big this planet is. We know more or less to what extent its resources can support our way of living. We also know that all of us are part of the same human species. We know (or should know) that fighting each other is pointless, and that we have more to gain from cooperating and living in harmony.

And yet, we still choose not to.

But it’s not only about resources, living space, and ethnicity that we fight each other now. Now we also fight over ethics, morality, societal norms, culture, or in one word: politics.

Now, politics is a bit of different debate than the other three items.

I think...

Because resources and living space are a thing that a group can have and lose to another group, for example.

But is a “political opinion” the same?

Well, if you think of politics as a tool for securing a group’s “rights”, then I can see why you would think that way. To give an over-simplified and sadly caricaturized (but often and hotly debated) example: The liberal side of the isle argues that if a country enacts and enforces a law stating that trans women are not entitled to using public restrooms assigned to women, then they lose that right, making it so that one group has more rights than the other. But the conservative side of the isle will argue that “biological women” have a right to have the restrooms assigned to them be private spaces where no “biological man” can enter, which is a right that they would lose if an opposite law was enacted and enforced, meaning that a different group would have less right.

(oof That was a mouthful. lol You wouldn’t believe how long it took me to craft those last two sentences. lol)

Notice how even the language employed by both sides wildly differs, for example, with the terms “trans women” and “biological women”.

So, does that mean that polarization is pre-programmed into the human species? Will we always want to fight over resources, living space, ethnicity, and which political ideology is the “correct” one? Are humans designed to seek reasons to disagree with each other?

And taking these questions to the absolute extreme: Are civil wars inevitable?

Could one in the US be on the horizon?

A lot of people sadly seem to think so.

(And it’s even more unfortunate that we have plenty of historic precedent for that.)

Or...

...is there perhaps a way for us to agree to disagree, to live and let live, and to ensure that everyone has the freedom to do as they choose, no matter what set of politics they believe in, and yet not have their freedom interfere with the freedom of any other?

Are the “culture wars” just a distraction?

Some say that we’re all just being made to fight each other, so that we’re distracted from what is really going on, which supposedly is the fact that there is a “tiny and elite cabal” that sits on the capstone of the pyramid of society, which wants to retain all of its wealth and power, and can only do so if we don’t notice that they exist, because if we did, then we would depose them.

I won’t deny that our world’s society has a clear elite that exercises a lot of influence over all of us, but I don’t believe that this tiny cabal that sits at the top really exists. I find it more plausible to say that there are very many competing groups of “elites”, and that there is no society that we can take refuge in where we won’t end up having to submit to one (meaning, a governing power). Some elites just happen to be slightly more benevolent and open to feedback from those who they rule than others.

(I even question whether in human society, it would even be possible for a political system to arise where, from the “peasant” all the way to the “president”, everyone is treated equally and has access to the same amount of wealth and influence. Notice that I couldn’t even find the language to avoid using words that denote a difference in class.)

But let’s assume for a moment that the “tiny capstone cabal” does exist, and that they are just pitting us all against one another. How could we stop that? Could we all join hands, climb the pyramid, and topple the capstone? Could we overcome our extreme differences of political opinion to focus on dethroning corrupt political leaders and installing fully trustworthy and competent ones?

(Do such politicians even exist? Or does power always, inevitably corrupt those who have it? I sometimes imagine myself trying to get into politics only as far as it would take for someone to try to bride me to peddle my influence. My gut tells me that I wouldn’t even get into any office before the first “buyer” appeared. lol So, on a more serious note, aren’t humans just inherently self-serving? Doesn’t everyone has a “price tag”? I do sincerely wonder what my price tag is sometimes, and if I would truly be willing to die for what I believe in.)

So, what I find somewhat amusing about the discussion surrounding this idea that the elites are to blame for the polarization, is that neither side seems to be willing to give up on its ideals. I have heard some on the left say: “Reproductive and trans rights aren’t the issue and aren’t going to hurt anyone. The elites are the problem.” But to very many people on the right, “outlawing abortion and banning gender ideology” is something that is going to “prevent” a lot of people from “getting hurt”. It’s a hill that they are willing to die on. In other words, what one side thinks is “obviously” a minor issue, is a major issue for the other side, and vice-versa.

So, who gets to decide what is and isn’t an important moral principle that needs to be protected by the law, and which side is willing to change its opinion on the matter, or at least, agree to concede its position on it?

Let’s look at some more concrete examples:

“Abortion” versus “reproductive rights”

A few months ago I stumbled on this podcast episode, moderated by one Ellen Fisher, where a “liberal feminist” influencer, Bronte Remsik, hashed it out with a “conservative wife” influencer, Isabel Brown. The topic of the debate was abortion.

I felt so nervous through the whole thing. The tension was palpable. I felt as if the two would jump on each other and viciously tear each other apart at any moment.

But maybe it was just me. Maybe I’m the unreasonable, overly sensitive one here. Maybe the two of them actually felt calm throughout (or at most, a little nervous) the whole thing. I should say that Ellen Fisher did an excellent job (I think) at giving both sides equal opportunity to build, consolidate, and defend their arguments. I don’t think that anything was left unsaid. I therefore highly recommend this podcast to you. It’s probably the best debate on the topic of abortion that I have ever heard.

However Remsik and Brown may have felt about each other and the debate, they kept it together. They remained polite. They looked in each other’s eyes while they talked. They didn’t use any bad faith arguments (not that I noticed anyway). They kept a calm tone of voice throughout. They didn’t get sarcastic with each other. It felt as though they were trying to listen to understand, rather than to reply (to a certain extent anyway). And surprisingly, they even agreed on a few points.

Wow. Refreshing. As intense as it was, I loved listening to both of them.

What I thought was the high point of this debate, was when they reached the bedrock of the issue. It turns out that their opinions on the matter are built on entirely different foundations. This was best illustrated, I think, when Remsik argued that forcing a woman to take her pregnancy to full term, violates her bodily autonomy. Brown countered by arguing that an abortion always violates the bodily autonomy of the baby. The discussion then moved to a debate about whether it morally matters more that the “already living and conscious” woman gets to choose if the fetus continues to “exploit” her body for its development, or the baby is given the opportunity to be born as he or she “naturally intends” to in order for him or her to later decide what to do with his or her own life. The debate boiled down to: “Which of the two ‘lives’ ‘matters’ more?”

Notice how, again, I tried to emulate the specific (and differing) language used by both sides. There was even a moment where Remsik was referring to “people who can get pregnant” in these terms, and Brown insisted on calling them “women” and “mothers” instead. Honestly, I’m worried that someday we won’t even be speaking the same language anymore and will become unable to understand each other. I think that was what George Orwell warned us about with the concept of newspeek, among other things.

With such a fundamental disagreement, it was inevitable that Remsik and Brown would end the debate at an impasse.

So, I’m not sure that they could become “friends” outside of this debate, and that saddens me.

But at least they were able to agree to disagree. They were willing to face each other and discuss this difficult topic without vitriol.

It probably wasn’t easy for them, but I think that it was worth it.

“Gender ideology” versus “LGBTQ+ rights”

I’m a Christian, and I have a very close gay friend.

I know. It’s a cliché. I understand that.

But it’s true.

And in fact, we met all the way back in 2015. We were very close friends for three to four years before he felt comfortable enough to come out to me.

Yes, we have discussed his sexual orientation at length. I have given him a fully open ear to tell me about his story and experiences. We never had anything even close to resembling a heated argument. I have never told him to seek any sort of conversion therapy. He told me that he knew that he was gay from whence he was a child. He told me that he has a good relationship with his parents and siblings (which I know he does), and that there isn’t any some sort of “repressed trauma” that “made” him gay. For all that we know, he was born that way, and he can’t change.

Now, his friendship has been one of the most important and meaningful to me in the years since we’ve met. We come from different countries but have spent a lot of time together. We have even traveled together (some of my fondest memories). We often update each other and talk just about anything. No, he’s not secretly into me (he’s into blondes, and I’ve known a lot of his crushes, lol), and he has known and been friends with my wife for about as long, because we all met around the same time. In fact, it’s a bit of a long story, but if it wasn’t for this gay man, then I wouldn’t be happily married today to begin with.

I won’t pretend that I don’t know what the Bible says about homosexuality, and how offensive and hurtful those eight short pieces of text are to people within the LGBTQ+ community. But tell me sincerely, what can I do about it? What can we do about it? Can we just pull a Nineteen Eighty-Four, erect a “Ministry of Truth”, and redact every statement about homosexuality in every Bible that’s in circulation? Should we just get rid of Christianity and the Bible altogether? I’m sincerely asking you to tell me what the solution here is.

As for me, I have long decided that I don’t want to be a part of this “us versus them” circus.

My friend is gay. That won’t change. I don’t want to change him. I know that I couldn’t anyway. We cannot change others. We can only change ourselves.

Therefore, I have chosen to accept my gay just friend as he is.

Gay.

Time will tell if I made the right choice. I’m willing to die eternally (as per the beliefs of my particular Christian denomination), if my choice to embrace this friendship is “a sin” that I’m unrepentant of. Ultimately, I’m not worried about whether I will “be saved” or not though. It’s not up for me to decide. I’m worried about my relationship with God. He is also a good friend to me—my best friend, in fact. I worry that what I do and say things that offend Him—Him who created me and died for me. And I have come to believe that it would be exceedingly offensive to God for me to antagonize my friend for being gay, given that He died for him as well.

All of this is to say that, it seems that a gay man and a Christian man can be close friends, agree on many things, work together (as we have), and live in harmony.

All it took, is for both of us to be willing to be friends.

Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that anyone can be close friends with anyone. That’s a different topic altogether.

My point is that we had the potential to become friends, and we didn’t let the political polarization that needlessly pits members of the LGBTQ+ community and Christians against each other to get in the way of that.

But I’ll be honest with you about something.

As careful as my (admittedly introverted) gay friend is to conceal his sexual orientation from those whom he feels he cannot trust...

...as careful am I to conceal my religious beliefs in the vast majority of the social interactions that I have, because I know that they will not be tolerated. And that leads me to the next topic:

On being a “social double agent”...

...as opposed to a “social butterfly”. lol

As you can imagine, as a Christian, I often hear opinions that deeply offend me and hurt my feelings. This is particularly true when I interact with people in my “secular social circles” (I’ll use that term for lack of a better one). Even those who tout themselves as “tolerant”, feel at ease to equate all of Christianity with bigotry of all kinds, including but not limited to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, you name it. I hear this list of evils that I’m supposedly guilty of all. The time.

When I was younger, I would get angry whenever someone unfairly characterized my religious beliefs.

These days, I just take a deep breath and... say nothing.

In fact, I have stopped the act of telling my people about my religious (or political beliefs) upfront, unless prompted. And in the case of this thread, I bring up Christianity a lot just because of my personal experiences, and because it is an excellent example of the points that I’m making, since it has become such a devise religion.

It just isn’t safe to be open about my religion anymore.

I have at times gotten into very ugly fights with people (both on and offline), as well as lost friends, or even been excluded from entire friend groups.

A lot of it was justified. I’ll admit that. Still, if you think about it, isn’t that counterproductive? That is, for me, a Christian, to be excluded from “secular social circles” because of some of my beliefs?

Think about it: If I keep being excluded from social circles where the majority of people have opinions different from those of my own, then where am I supposed to go? Well, back to my “echo chambers”, of course.

Isn’t this a self-perpetuating, circular problem that we have in our society today?

People keep excluding each other from social circles for dissenting opinions. Therefore, they retreat into their echo chambers. This makes them exclude dissenting opinions even more, further radicalizing their beliefs. And the cycle continues.

Now, I am aware that I’m about as intelligent and mature as a molding aubergine. lol So, I know that I desperately need to be exposed to a variety of opinions, thoughts, philosophies, ideologies, etc., in order to not become some radical fundamentalist myself. Of course, I’m not willing to adopt any opinion that is out there just for the sake of appearing “tolerant” or open or whatever. However, I know that I can learn from all, and will definitely come closer to a more balanced worldview if I do (cue the cliché) “keep an open mind”.

So, what have I done in these last few years to ensure that I retain access to “secular social circles”?

As I said, I have kept quiet.

I mix and mingle with folks of all kinds of strokes, and when I hear them criticize an opinion that I hold, if I feel that me “coming out” will start a fight, then I just choose to stay quiet and nod.

Experience has taught me that, in many cases, an opportunity will eventually arise for us to discuss that exact opinion on good faith terms, sometime in the future.

But in that particular moment, it just may not be the right time to do that.

Yes, on occasion I meet people on either side who are just completely obnoxious and can’t be reasoned with, whether vocally or silently. They will demand that you either side with them or against them. In those cases, I just distance myself. Acting like a doormat doesn’t help anyone either.

And yes. It could be that I never get an opportunity to “set the record straight” about who I truly am or what I truly believe in.

So what though?

I don’t think that I’d like my epitaph to read: “He always made sure that people knew his opinion about every single thing.” lol

I lose nothing from occasionally “swallowing the frog” (as we say in Portuguese) and keeping quiet. My “opinions” won’t be offended if I don’t defend them. lol

Now, does that mean that sometimes people think that I agree with them when I actually don’t? Would they be offended to eventually find out? Probably. But, I mean, what’s the alternative? “To always say it as it is”? Because that’s really going to benefit both parties, right? lol I mean, the choice is yours. You can be my friend, have meaningful interactions with me, and accept that I may secretly not see eye-to-eye with you (which, let’s be honest, none of us 100% agree on everything), or you can continue to retreat into your echo chamber.

But do my opinions really matter that much? Am I somehow incapable of being a good person to you, and enrich your life with my friendship, because I have opinions that are different from yours? Do my opinions define who I am?

I won’t say that they “completely don’t”, but I’ll say this:

Years ago I learned this really useful principle (starts at 1m 6s) from CGP Grey, that a better way to relate to our opinions, is to think of them as items that are “separate” from us (as in, bodily), and sit somewhere in a “box” (if we were to mentally visualize this principle), so that when people inevitably “attack” them, we don’t feel like the attack was directed at us. This also makes it easier to swap them out if we find better ones, and in turn means that our opinions aren’t what fundamentally defines us, so “hiding” them isn’t tantamount to deception. Rather, we are then primarily defined by how we interact with others. To simply this principle: It isn’t what you think or say, it’s what you do.

Is me adhering to this principle dishonest on my part? I’ll let God decide that. I think that it matters to Him more that I live in harmony with people, though I could be wrong.

But do know that adopting this attitude is very difficult. It took me a lot of painful practice to get to the point that I am at now (and I still have such a long journey ahead). And it just so happens that I subject myself to opinions that I disagree with on a daily basis, not just in discussions with other people, but even through the media that I consume (where some sources are those that often express views that disagree with mine). It physically hurts me, sometimes. I feel a knot in my stomach. I won’t pretend that I’m stronger than other people. I’m not. I often think to myself: “My goodness. That is such a horrible misrepresentation of my opinion!”

And believe it or not...

...that even happens to me in my church.

I generally agree with the tenants and fundamental beliefs of the denomination that I am a member of.

But boy, oh boy, would I be quickly burned at the stake if some of them knew what I actually believe concerning certain topics. lol

(And this includes what I wrote earlier about my gay friend.)

It seems that we’re just not allowed to hold opinions from different camps in one brain anymore.

And this leads me to the next topic:

The appropriation or co-opting of lifestyles and the death of variety

A lot of Christians these days say that the carnivore diet is the best and most “natural” one.

I’m a Christian and I don’t agree with that.

Surprisingly, my denomination happens to be one of the few ones out there that mostly subscribes to veganism.

Unfortunately though (in my opinion), politically conservative Christians (especially the loudest ones on social media) have made the carnivore diet a part of their “brand”. And very many of them do push the idea that vegans are always weak, unhealthy, and leftist.

In other words: Vegan = left wing. Carnivore = right wing.

If this sounds dumb to you, then welcome to my club. I also think that it sounds dumb.

Yes, I’m vegan because of my religion... and also because of the environment, animals, and my health.

And speaking of the environment, yes, I think that humanity has a (God-given) duty to steward the earth, and I think that green energy is the technology that we should invest in.

Crazy! Who would think that Christians, who believe something as ridiculous as the idea that God created the earth in seven days, and told the first two humans He created to take care of a garden, could be environmentalists? lol

One attitude that I think contributes more to the polarization of politics than almost anything, is this co-opting or appropriation of lifestyles, interests, and political opinions, by the two tribes. And what saddens me the most about this, is that I have observed that many people “choose their tribe”, and then end up subscribing to all of the other ideas of that tribe, even those they disagree with, just because the tribe demands complete loyalty to its entire ideological program.

Just to give an example in the category of “interests”, I find it astonishing how unwelcome Christians are in the FOSS community. Believe it or not, I would love for FOSS to grow and become mainstream. I think that decentralized, free, and open-sourced software would benefit us all. My denomination branched off from Protestantism, which may deserve criticism for a lot of things, but not for being closed to technological and openly-shared innovations, as printing Bibles in the vernacular (German) was central to the popularization of the printing press. So, I don’t think that my religious beliefs make me somehow incompatible with open-sourced software. Would a FOSS app get offended that I believe that its was “code” was “programed” by a “higher intelligence”, and that it didn’t evolve out of the silicon and copper by pure chance? lol

This “death of ideologically diversity”, if I may call it that, is what led us to this situation where, in the words of the guys from The Juice Media, we are left with all but two tribes to plead our loyalty to: Shit™ and Shit Lite™. lol

And that leads me to the next topic:

How I vote

I don’t.

I voted once, in a parliamentary election, not long after I turned 18 in 2007.

Side note: I’m still a babe with regards to politics, but I was a political zygote when I became old enough to legally vote. What is holding us back from using our much neglected systems of education to teach students about how our political systems work? How they can participate in politics? How they can obtain information about politicians and parties? Call it “Political Literacy 101” if you will.

Either way, I never voted again. A big reason is simply because I began to spend more time abroad than at home when I turned 22. And since I’m 29, I’ve been permanently living abroad, with no plan of returning to the absolute dumpster fire that the Portuguese political landscape has been in the last few years.

But another big reason is just because... I don’t “who” to vote for.

First of all, it seems that every party that makes it into power, is ultimately caught in multiple scandals. And given enough time, every politician will turn out to have done something deeply corrupt and/or outright illegal. Very many of them get blatantly away with it and laugh in our faces.. We keep “voting for change” (which the candidates and parties promise), but after the victory celebrations are over, it’s back to the status quo, or maybe even a step deeper into the mire.

Furthermore, no politician or party seems to represent me. Until 2022, in Portugal, there was a Christian, center-right party (they would have characterized themselves as such) named CDS-PP. But that year, they lost all remaining seats they had (and that after being existing since 1974, founded right after the military coup that returned democracy to the country). Whats particularly unfortunate about this, is that an actually dangerous, populist, far-right party rose to replace them. CDS-PP are kind of back now, but in a way that makes them even less representative for me.

You will tell me that abstaining from voting is the same as casting my vote with the powers that be. But I have also heard from many people that casting my ballot in favor of a small and independent party, has the exact same effect. The big parties are “guaranteed to win”, so any other option is not a “useful vote” (which is an expression that I dislike, and is, as I understand it, what we call a “strategic vote” in Portugal) So, as much as the system seems to encourage (or at least, not be effective enough to prevent) the polarization of the isle, it would seem to me that the voting habits of the population do exactly the same. It would require a large majority of us to collectively agree to refuse to vote for the two, primary, ruling parties, for any real shakeup to occur. But how can we achieve that agreement?

I live in Latvia, and it isn’t a perfect system either, but the people here do one thing right: They have and vote for a lot of small parties that hold seats in their parliament, giving voters a real choice and forcing politicians to compromise, compromise, compromise when forming coalitions. Again, I’m politically ignorant, so correct me if I’m wrong, but in theory, this should make it more likely that moderate policies end up the ones that are enacted, right? Which in turn should displease every citizen only slightly, rather than pleasing either only one half or the other.

I brought up The Juice Media YouTube channel before, and I’d like to recommend to you this very funny three-minute-long video, that is as much a parody as it is highly informative, where the creators warn Australians about how the two-party system is about to become entrenched in Aussie politics. The video lists the large number of alternative minority parties that can be voted for, and how the red and blue dinosaurs currently in power are working to use the system to make it impossible for any of them to get a seat at the table. Talk about kangaroo politics! lol

I don’t think that packing a parliament (or the chambers of the US Congress for that matter) with many small parties, is what is going to solve all of these problems. I know that. And unfortunately, in a way, the polarization has even affected how parties form coalition governments, creating all sorts of chaos. We’ve seen that recently in my country, as well as in Spain and France. I haven’t been paying too much attention, but it seems to be an issue in Germany as well. If you happen to come from any of these countries, or know a lot about their political systems, then please do enlighten me. This is all to say, that I acknowledge that coming up with a better system is a complex and complicated matter.

Still, I cannot imagine that having lots of small parties in an assembly would be worse than what we have in the United States at the moment, which despite all the talk about “checks and balances”, seems to be a popularity contest that is an eternally swinging pendulum of “winner takes all” politics.

And by the way: I say “we”, because when the United States “sneezes”, the rest of the world catches a cold. My lungs have been coughing up “tariffs” lately. It’s rather painful. I think that, as important as it is to respect the sovereignty of a nation’s electorate, we also need to stop pretending that any countries’ politics are completely inconsequential to their neighbors, or worse, the rest of the world. They’re not, and the US is a particularly heavy link in this chain. In other words, as “apolitical” as I feel these days, politics affect me nonetheless.

Can we accept the outcome of elections?

And that leads me to my last point.

I would like to see an utopia where those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, live together in harmony, and don’t clash with each other.

But inevitably, they will. A woman will pregnant and want an abortion, and someone close to her (or the state) will want to prevent that.

And this is just one example where the freedoms and right of one group can clash with the freedoms and rights of another group.

So, sadly, I have to admit defeat. I don’t think that we can reverse the political polarization. I also don’t think that we can prevent more civil wars. They have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. I just can’t imagine what thing could possibly make everyone stop for a moment and think: “Hey, maybe it would be best to just let others live however they choose to”, and then cooperate to build a system that somehow, magically makes that a reality.

And even if one cohesive ideology could conquer every single human mind and take control of the world (which would be a horrible idea, but for the sake of the argument, let’s imagine it for a second), I’m willing to bet that, given human nature, sooner or later, some new kind of division would come out of it. A good illustration of this are episodes 12 and 13 of the 10th season of South Park. They were hilarious, for various reasons (including for making fun of the launch of the Nintendo Wii), but the overarching story in those two episodes is that, in the future, there are only atheists. They, however, broke off into three factions and started a war because... well... I won’t spoil it, but you can watch it for yourself in the 13th episode, between 16m 45s and 17m 55s. It’s hilarious.

I try to act in a manner where I accept the outcome of elections, and more broadly speaking, the societal shifts that go along with them. I’ve been a Christian since around 2004, and the world has only become more hostile to my kind, but I just move on with my life. At the same time, I try to avoid to cause any disturbance to anyone around me, especially those who associate my religion with painful lived experiences.

But even the Bible warns me (or at least, that’s how I interpret it), that a day will come, when I will be persecuted for my beliefs, particularly “keeping the Sabbath holy”, or said differently, refusing to work on Saturday. And I have felt that this is a real and growing danger, as it’s becoming the norm for businesses and companies to expect their employees to work on Saturday. I have been unemployed for a while now, and part of my difficulty in finding a new job is that no employer wants to give me Saturday off (I should add that I always offer to work from Sunday to Friday). This state of things is partly due to politics. But there was once a group of people that was persecuted and killed, and they happen to also refuse to work on Saturdays, so it’s not impossible that something like that might happen again. And if that day comes, then... well... I’ll take the bullet.

It worries me that people are increasingly dissatisfied with election results, unwilling to accept them and move on, and that more and more are openly (or secretly) calling on those around them to start a violent uprising. J6 may have been a foretaste of that. We also saw the “mostly peaceful protests” that took place in 2020. More recently, a bullet missed its intended target by one inch, preventing what could become a complete catastrophe (though causing the electorate to vote for a different one). I would like to the Americans among us to take head, because we saw how absolutely brutal a civil war can be, when all the weapons at your disposal are primitive firearms. So imagine what a civil war would like with very effective, modern firearms. I’d rather not imagine that. So, shouldn’t we take a deep breath and turn the heat down?

If you have made it this far, you’re a trooper.

I want to give a special thanks to the kind people maintaining Tildes for allowing me to participate on here (especially if I’m not banned after posting this, lol).

I can’t wait to read your comments.

Much love from Latvia.

Message for Deimos or anyone else on Tildes development

I'm putting this here after writing the rest of my post, but could we please get an "expand edit window" option, unless there is one and I'm blind? The preview window's great but the edit window's locked to 6 lines and I would appreciate some more since it would make editing a long post like this much easier. Thanks.

The actual post

There has been a lot of gaming buzz regarding extraction shooters as of late, with the closed alpha of Bungie's Marathon currently underway, the second tech test of Embark Studio's ARC Raiders starting just now, and the recent news of the cancellation of a Titanfall extraction shooter from EA/Respawn. As someone who's played and enjoyed extraction shooters before I've been following these and observing the discourse surrounding them (except the Titanfall one, I didn't even know that was a thing til the news of its cancellation) and I've been somewhat dismayed to see a lot of confusion, mixed messaging, and general disdain for the genre. So I've decided to put my own thoughts and definitions of it down here, and clear up the most common misconceptions or falsehoods I've seen repeated ad nauseam elsewhere.

A brief introduction to extraction shooters

First off, what IS an extraction shooter, what makes it different from other shooters, notably battle royales, and which games qualify as extraction shooters? An extraction shooter, as its core gameplay loop, is a shooter where you enter a map with loot and AI enemies scattered about, and the goal is to gather loot and extract from the map with it. However, you need to get out alive - should you die, you will lose everything (with some exceptions) in your inventory, including the gear you went in with. On top of that, the most popular and successful extraction shooters are PvEvP - you will be competing with other real players for loot, and taking loot off their bodies can be just as profitable if not more so than taking it from PvE enemies. It is optional though, and it is entirely viable to play as a "rat", sneaking around and gathering loot without drawing attention and extracting without anyone noticing.

Not a battle royale

Extraction shooters are also frequently confused with battle royales as both games have players inserted into a PvP map where they scavenge gear. However, the similarities more or less end there. With battle royales, you do not risk losing your items on death as all players are dropped in with nothing and don't have a stash to draw from or store items in, so any "loot" found is merely a means of securing victory for the current round. PvP is also mandatory, as the goal is not to get loot but to be the last team/person standing. To facilitate this in a timely manner, battle royales have a shrinking map mechanic that forces the remaining players into a smaller playable area as time goes on to force them into a confrontation. Extraction shooters do not force PvP or have shrinking maps but do have their own ways of drawing players towards each other, through loot-rich points of interest and extraction zones. Some parts of the map will have greater quality and/or quantity of loot, which will naturally draw players in, and there are a few designated areas where you can actually leave with your loot which will also increase your odds of encountering other players either trying to take your loot before you can leave, or trying to leave themselves. Because it is not forced though, PvP encounters are a much more unpredictable and organic experience in extraction shooters.

What extraction shooters are out there?

So which games count as extraction shooters? The current leaders in the genre, which also happen to be some of the longest-lasting ones, are Escape From Tarkov (EFT) and Hunt: Showdown. EFT is a rather hardcore modern military FPS with a heavy focus on realism - guns are extremely customizable, ammo types and armor can make a huge difference, bullets are extremely lethal even from AI enemies, and a good headshot will drop even the most geared and armored player so there's always risk. It has a cult following but its hardcore emphasis makes it unapproachable for most. It also has periodic progression wipes where players have to start over from scratch to keep things fresh and more fair for newcomers, but is a major turnoff for players that don't like to lose what they've earned. Hunt is an FPS set at the end of the 19th century with a bit of dark magic/voodoo theme. Guns are reflective of the times and rather limited in terms of rate of fire and reload speed, which results in more drawn-out firefights where every bullet counts. For each round, the focus isn't to get loot around the map but rather to track and hunt down a bounty boss monster, then extract with that bounty. These two games are what will come to mind first when extraction shooters are mentioned, EFT more so.

I won't go over cancelled (Titanfall), discontinued (The Cycle: Frontier), or side game-mode (The Division's dark zone/survival) extraction shooters here, which is basically almost all of them sadly, so I'll talk about the two biggest up-and-coming ones instead, Marathon and ARC Raiders.

Marathon and the surrounding controversy

Marathon is a sci-fi FPS that uses the lore of Bungie's Marathon trilogy from the 90's as its setting. You play as a "runner" in a robotic shell scavenging the remains of the colony on Tau Ceti IV for scrap to fulfill contracts for the megacorporations involved in the colony's development who now seek to find out what went wrong. It checks the usual boxes for an extraction shooter - you go in with your own loadout, scavenge at points of interest to fill your limited inventory, defeat PvE enemies and other runners for loot opportunities, and try to extract alive before time's up. There are a couple things of note that have resulted in mixed opinions:

• The art direction for runners, gear, and architecture is a sort of mass-produced, neon-colored, smoothed plastic, blocky style, which is a "love it or hate it" kind of thing.
• The gunplay is very similar to that of Destiny, Bungie's last game, which in my opinion is very solid. However, they did make the decision to have mouse magnetism enabled for PC (your cursor will magnetize to targets) to give it more parity with console players, and that has been very unpopular.
• The only queueing option is teams of 3 and the devs have stood their ground on not having a solo or duo player queue, which is a turn-off for players that prefer solo, or don't want to play with randoms and don't have 2 friends to play with.
• Players do not have full customization of their runners but must choose from 6 runner archetypes that have a set of abilities and a specific look, which can be partially changed with a skin. This is also largely unpopular, as Bungie's past titles have featured high levels of cosmetic customization and this feels largely restrictive and monetization-focused instead.
• There is no option for proximity voice chat, which the devs have said was excluded to protect players from toxicity. This has also proved to be very unpopular.
• It will have seasonal progression wipes which will reset faction reputation and clean out player vaults, which is unpopular among players that like to hoard their loot, especially many Destiny players.
• Supposedly there will be more "raid-like" PvE experiences on an as-of-yet unreleased map that takes place aboard the Marathon colony ship, but how mechanically complex those are or whether or not that will be enough to attract PvE-oriented players is pure speculation at this point.
• It will not be free-to-play, but rather released at a "premium" but not full game price point, which most people are assuming to be $40 USD.

The game is set to release in September this year, but based on the feedback Bungie is getting from players in this very first alpha, they will need to take this feedback very seriously and make a number of changes in the few months they have left, or risk a very rocky release and potentially financial failure. Many players seem to want Marathon and Bungie to fail, notably vitriolic Destiny veterans that feel like they were snubbed out of Destiny 3 for this, but as someone with over 2000 hours in Destiny 2 myself I want it to succeed, whether I play it or not. I'd rather there be more fun and successful games than major failures, and wishing for something to fail just because it isn't what you want is incredibly petty.

ARC Raiders, the underdog

ARC Raiders is a third person shooter set in a post-apocalypse where robots called ARC have devastated the surface of Earth and humanity has retreated underground, sending "raiders" to the surface to scavenge for tech and goods. It's developed by Embark Studios, which is made up of ex-DICE (Battlefield) developers, and their other title is the well-received but niche PvP shooter The Finals. Mechanics-wise, there isn't anything particularly unique about this extraction shooter - limited mobility, limited inventory space, PvE enemies, points of interest, extraction points, etc. However, it seems to check all the boxes of what players want and it does it well while making the experience more casual and accessible:

• There are "safe pockets" where players can store a few loot items they won't lose on death (Tarkov does also have this, Marathon and Hunt do not).
• There is proximity voice, and also a quick emote menu for giving vocal commands, directions, and responses.
• The art direction is realistic post-apocalypse with high graphical fidelity and semi-futuristic robots, which is "safe", but still good looking.
• The audio design is phenomenal. Distant gunfire, supersonic cracks of rounds, bullets ricocheting off surfaces, large bots stomping around from blocks away, player footsteps on different surfaces and within enclosed spaces, quadcopter drones buzzing, larger bots with unsettling and deep "roars", and more.
• There isn't a solo or duo-only queue, but there is solo-matching priority at least, so you're more likely to be placed with other solo players.
• There is a clear progression path in the form of a workshop you can upgrade with scavenged materials, and a deep skill tree with multiple branches.
• Raiders are not class or hero-based and are freely customizable by the players in terms of loadout and appearance.
• Chaff PvE enemies are relatively easy to defeat but still dangerous. Aside from eliminating them as threats, they can drop materials or items to recharge your shields so they're not just a waste of ammo. Non-chaff PvE enemies can be significantly more dangerous and harder to defeat but will have valuable loot.
• There is already an example of a PvE "boss" robot guarding a point of interest which requires some mechanics to collect the loot within it. The boss itself is very challenging to defeat, even with multiple teams fighting it, but should reward top-tier loot.
• While the game was initially announced as free-to-play, the devs have since switched to selling it at at $40 USD.
• There are "battle passes" in the game in the form of shops players can unlock using a currency that is earnable in-game, or purchased with real money (like warbonds from Helldivers 2 for any helldivers reading this).

Overall, the game is shaping up to be a more accessible extraction shooter for the wider gaming audience and very serious competition for Marathon. No official release date has been announced but they are planning on releasing some time this year.

The stigma around extraction shooters

I've mentioned various things about extraction shooters that may be contributing to their unpopularity amongst the wider gaming audience throughout the post, but for the sake of cohesiveness and for all the folks that just want a TL;DR, I will collate and expand on those ideas here:

• Confusion with battle royales - I've seen some people confuse extraction shooters with battle royales and say "the market is oversaturated with extraction shooters, dead trend chasing game" or something along those lines. It's hard to call a market oversaturated when there's only 2 successful and very niche games in it, but if you incorrectly lump all the battle royales in that makes more sense.

• Escape From Tarkov is a bad poster child - When people do think of extraction shooters (and not mistakenly battle royales), they will default to EFT, which is notoriously hardcore and "sweaty". It would be the same as never having played an RPG, and being introduced to it with Dark Souls, which would understandably turn away anyone that isn't looking for that kind of experience.

• PvP and losing progress - The game always having a PvP element is already discouraging to PvE-focused players, and this is only made worse by the chance to lose your gear if you die. Many players are strongly opposed to losing progress, and losing multiple times in a row due to other players defeating them when they just want to do PvE and get some loot is an awful experience that they don't have to have in a different type of game.

• Progression wipes are anathema to hoarders - On top of potentially losing progress on a round-to-round basis, seasonal progression wipes also threaten to reset progress entirely between seasons, While they are effective at keeping things fresh, players that like to have 400+ items stored away in their vault that they will never use and just admire from time to time revile this concept. Less hoard-minded players may be concerned about their potential inability to max out their progression, the fear of missing out induced by temporary progression, or the pointlessness of even progressing if it gets wiped anyway.

I didn't read any of that, are extraction shooters for me or not?

Well, that depends. If you:

• Don't mind or enjoy a mixed PvEvP experience
• Are ok with the idea of loot and progression being temporary
• Like the higher stakes of potentially losing your inventory and gear, or taking someone else's
• Are ok with inventory management, even in the middle of a round
• Are not terrible at shooters

Then yes, extraction shooters may be fun for you! They certainly aren't for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with not enjoying one or the genre in general, but if you do, they offer a very unique gaming experience. If you are interested, keep an eye on ARC Raiders and Marathon - they aim to be more accessible than previous extraction shooters and it's a lot easier to get in on a new game than join one with a veteran playerbase.

I have been playing Pikmin 2 on Dolphin and have been enjoying it quite a lot.

For the most part, progress has been slow, but today I found the blue Pikmin (I somehow managed to find the yellow ones first and played a bunch of the game without the blue ones), and that just got me so excited that I basically completed Valley of Repose in just one day (the two remaining, farthest caves and every treasure above ground). I’m on day 13 now, have over 90% of the debt paid off, and not a single Pikmin has died on me.

You don’t need to understand the previous paragraph if you don’t know anything about Pikmin. My point is that I’ve been playing through the game rather fast and better than I would on real hardware.

Why?

Save states. ❤️

I love emulation, but I don’t like how “janky” it can be. I don’t like that it doesn’t 100% emulate (pun intended) the “feel” of playing on original hardware.

But boy, oh boy, do I loooooove save states. 🥰

They enhance the gameplay experience so much for me. They enable me to have perfect playthroughs, both in terms of the game’s objectives, as well as my play style (like me not wanting to sacrifice any of my Pikmin, for example).

Do save states make the games too easy at times? Perhaps.

But that’s the point for me.

You see, I don’t want video games to challenge me.

Life already challenges me enough as it is.

I play video games for fun, and I’m not having fun if I’m struggling too much to beat a video game. When I finally beat a difficult challenge in a game, especially if I had to struggle to do so, then I feel frustrated more than I feel that I achieved something.

Is my dislike of challenges, whether in real life or in video games a character defect? A sign of weakness?

Perhaps.

I do face challenges in real life. I have to, or else I won’t survive.

But when I come home and sit down to play a video game, I want it to be a fun and chill experience. I want to feel like a champ who breezes through the game. I also don’t want to waste too much time trying to beat one overly-difficult game, but rather experience as many different games as I can.

Life is too short and I don’t want mine to be wasted by challenging video games.

I have nothing but mad respect for you if you play video games for the challenge, but that just ain’t me.

As one of my favorite YouTubers Mr. Sujano would say: “Don’t temp fate, save your state.”

I was reminded this morning of the video in which a physical education teacher is performing a workout dance routine in Myanmar, not realizing that she captured the start of the 2021 coup d'état in the background.

She's wearing a covid mask, dancing to an incredibly upbeat and catchy song while the military vehicles roll in to crush their democracy. I can't recall where I saw this, but I will never forget the comment someone left online about the video which read, "This is decadently post-modern."

To make it even more interesting, the song itself is a parody of authority. It's essentially a song mocking weak men with big egos, and the song title translates roughly to, "Have Mercy, Mr. Tough Guy/Big Shot"

Link to video

What other insane things do we have in 2025 as a result of ubiquitous high-definition cameras?

It may surprise you to hear that ever since the tender ages of 15 to 16 (2004 to 2005) I have tried to “become famous” on the Internet.

Why? I don’t know. I just wanted to. I wanted people to hear my opinions on the Internet and praise me for sharing them.

I tried pretty much everything: blogging, YouTube, social media, you name it. Content that I made ranged from commentary, to news, gaming, music, cooking, etc. All my projects “failed” (or rather, they didn’t grow as fast as I expected them to, so I gave up). I’m talking hundreds of attempts.

Then in late 2023, I made a New Year’s resolution for 2024 to fully delete Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, 9gag, and Reddit. My resolution worked and it changed my life.

A lot of people in my social circle have since begun telling me that I have this talent or that talent, and that I should monitize it by growing a following on social media. I have ignored all of them, despite spending a good 20 years trying to do exactly that. Here’s why:

• The first and foremost reason is that I don’t want to wrestle with algorithms and follow trends. It seems that it’s almost impossible to grow a following on the Internet these days without doing that, unless you get very lucky growing a following organically, which only very few people do. Chasing algorithms and trends is not fun, and if I’m not having fun with what do with my spare time, then I don’t want to do it at all. I’ve also come to hate creating video content for some reason. I just find it tedious.
• Over the years, I feel that I have become afraid of getting lucky and becoming successful. It seems to me that the people who live off creating content for the Internet, don’t ever get a break. Their followers demand a steady stream of content, and if you don’t keep vying for their attention, then they’ll go give it to someone else and you’re suddenly left without any income. I know that many creators work seven days a week.
• This leads me to the problem of “attention”: I don’t want to compete for people’s attention anymore. I hate the whole concept of the “attention economy”. It’s so insane to me that the survival of so many hundreds of million of people depends of how much human attention their work gets. And I’m not talking just about social media now, but entertainment in general. There are only so many humans, and they have a limited amount of time during the day that they can offer attention to entertainment to (be it social media, TV, movies, music, games, you name it). I think that these business models are not sustainable. There are also too many “things” for us to pay attention to these days and I feel like it’s driving us all insane. I’ve been intentionally trying to pay attention to as few things as I possibly can for a while now and it has significantly reduces my anxiety and FOMO. It’s given me a lot of peace. So, I don’t want to contribute to this “evil” myself.
• The Internet has become a dangerous place. Even people who publish otherwise completely innocuous content get sometimes harassed or doxxed. Streamers get SWATed. Women get the brunt of it (I think) because sexual harassment and deepfake porn has become so prevalent, and they can do nothing to protect themselves. Everything you publish anywhere can and will be used against you (including by potential employers). Being “unknown” and “staying in your lane” seems to be about the only way that you can stay safe these days.
• I also just don’t want the endless scrutiny that comes with fame, the expectation that my personality can’t change, that opinions can’t be nuanced, and that I squarely fit into either the “blue box” or the “red box” (in whatever aspect, since every field of opinion these days seems to be thoroughly divided in half). Whatever opinion people share online, even the most trivial, can and will be misinterpreted by bad faith actors and trolls to just mentally crush you.
• I have come to think that dying in anonymity, while leaving no legacy behind, is actually not a bad thing. I mean, it’s a “natural” thing. It’s what happens to the vast majority of humans anyway. Why should I be so afraid of that? Afraid of living my life in the peace of anonymity? There are plenty of ways to live a meaningful life that don’t involve becoming famous on the Internet, or famous at all.

I regret arriving at this conclusion now only. I had so much trouble in my short and fruitless life because of stuff that I posted on the Internet (talking about Facebook and my social circle more specifically). I could have avoided all of that. I could also not have wasted so much time entertaining ideas of online grandeur, blowing away countless hours of my pitiful existence on projects that never amounted to anything, and instead, gotten an education, so that I wouldn’t be living in poverty now.

Oh, well. It is what it is. Better learning now than never.

I’m not sure why I ever wanted to be famous on the Internet to begin with, or what made me think that there’s any inherent worth in getting online praise just for sharing my mediocre opinions. Maybe I’m mentally ill. Maybe I’m traumatized. Maybe this is something that I should consult a therapist over. However, what I do know, is that I’m done with pursuing online fame.

I think that the Internet as it is today, flipped some sort of switch in people’s brain (including mine), which convinced us that it is normal to chase fame because the means to get there are so readily available. I don’t know how the Internet could have been designed differently to prevent this, but “giving a voice to everyone” was, in hindsight, maybe a badly implemented idea.

I’d be surprised to hear that any of you here have been trying to become famous on the Internet, but if you have, then I’d like to hear about your experience, and your opinions on this topic in general.

A month ago news about Dropout was shared here which is how I learned of the service. Having subscribed to it due to it, and since I liked it sufficiently in the three day trial, I'd like to share my thoughts on it.

Overall I mostly appreciate the content, especially due to the unique nature of it. The overall amount of diversity of various comedy formats and skill of the cast at improvisation(or at least the appearance of it) is pretty impressive.

Game changer is pretty amazing at how it manages to intelligently change the game presented (and sometimes format) nearly every episode. Play it by ear spinoff features an improvised musical with very good performances that are delight to watch. Dimension 20 is a tabletop gaming session show with good use of props and music and coherent and engaging storylines. These are mostly ones I watched for one but I'm sure I like some of the others it has to offer too.

But there are also some things that I consider at best suboptimal.

While not catastrophic in either intensity or frequency the crude ass/fart jokes are on average present almost every episode and definitely lower the overall quality in my opinion.

So far as I know specific to Dimension 20 is the woefully lacking content and trigger warnings descriptions. The seasons can vary massively in tone and the indication of it is basically zero until you actually watch it for a while. There are trigger warnings under episodes but only them. Using Burrow's end as example it starts as an intensive and dramatic in events but at the same time very cozy in the family interactions story, then devolves right in the next episode into intensely graphic(for the format) gratuitous gore and body horror with no sufficient indications of that in the first two hours plus long episode.

It mostly lacks the anti user features of modern streaming services but it would have been nice if they left them out entirely. Having to go outside of the site to get basic information on the content, bad series organization(overall seasons sometimes being listed in several different series, making the series tab a mess), unchangeable(as far as I know) play next video anti feature, multitude of trackers on site or the traditional inability to buffer too much of the stream in the browser.

Overall I mostly like it, I just wish they'd have made it possible to like it more.