All they have to do is redefine “establishment”. That’s child’s play for this court.

Thank you!

To be fair, this was the case in my secular(-ish) public school as well and I believe it was there until the early 2000s. The catholic church has many sins (which Squid did a great job laying out above), but I don’t think they, as a group, endorse the concept of corporal punishment like they do with anti-choice practices or the rampant pedophilia. That’s a cultural issue with certain regions of the US.

Does anyone happen to have the link they provide for proof? Not questioning that it’s happening, I would just like to do further reading.

Of course, and I agree with that (on faith, because I genuinely don’t know who the guy is yet). I’ve met enough people who are incredibly talented with fucked up views to know that intellect and morality are not as entwined as we might hope. Death of the author, applied to science.

I’m not sure I even agree with this take btw, as much as just finding it a valid one to hold that I would disagree with. It’s also fully possible I’m getting invested enough in a hypothetical to the point of being irritating. If so, I do apologize. I’m not trying to provide any sort of moral cover for someone who sounds like an overall shitty person.

I’m not so worried about the direct effect of seeing the commandments on the wall as much as the chilling effect it introduces into the classroom for teachers and older students. Something like this conveys support from authority and presses down on those who do not support those ideals.

Lol that’s a fair take. I’m playing it right now to prep for Erdtree, so it’s likely just stuck in my head.

I think that’s a valid take I’d like to see discussion on. For me, I think it’s not black and white. Just because of cultural context in the time they lived, I’m certain almost every scientist before 1900 was a raging homophobe and likely racist to boot. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Darwin and Mendel had problematic beliefs in this same regard. We take the ideas and iterate on them in non-problematic ways to validate the underlying assumptions. Is this guy in the same sort of bucket? Hell if I know.

Not really, no. Letters from Thomas Jefferson don’t generally get referenced in court. Now, the establishment clause might have an impact here, because this is definitely going to SCOTUS next year. The real question is whether they will respect the actual text of the first amendment or their bullshit “historical standards”.

Weird. Subtle signposting is not exactly a new feature, even if this form kind of is? The path of grace in Elden Ring, yellow paint in every first person game with parkour, and the wind in Ghosts of Tsushima all come to mind.

Sure thing, always happy to add to my reading list.

I’ve seen you enough Squid to know you’re not approaching this in bad faith either, as much as just reacting to what is likely exactly what you say. This is a tough situation because I don’t feel that either of you are racist/reactive respectively as much as just sharing info you feel is important. Platforming is weird and nuanced and I do think the other commentor is trying to separate the racist prof from the ideology itself, which could be applied in a non-racist manner. I still think that platforming is open to criticism even if the intent is noble, so that’s a valid bone to pick.

Again though, no skin in this game and I have not personally research any of the science or people involved. I just don’t want to see what could be a productive argument on a science turn into the rhetoric/semantics debate that online discussions inevitably turn into.

Edit: And also, I’m not trying to approach this from a high and mighty perspective. I just know it’s easy to get lost in it when you’re passionate. A brief glance at my history would tell you I’m by no means immune to a good internet argument.

That all works for me. Again, I have no opinion on evopsych itself because I just genuinely know nothing about it. Might read up a bit on the sources from the opposing narratives in the thread if I get time. I don’t think you in particular are approaching it from an unscientific or unethical point of view, but it could just be a bit of guilt by association with individuals who are using the topic nefariously. It’s not very fair, but it is common and I kinda understand why.

People really don’t understand how many players there are who just don’t care about this stuff. They get none of the gamer rage, they don’t check reddit or lemmy, they’re not watching Twitter to see what the game journos are pissed about. DLC and MTX make buckets of money, even when compared to the profits from most full games, and they’re magnitudes cheaper and easier to develop. They’re not going away as long as they’re bought and they’re going to be bought, I guarantee it. It’s not even a bad thing, per se, as long as the player feels they’ve gotten their money’s worth.

If anyone is looking to return gaming to a pre-“horse armor” state where big DLCs were the only option, you are looking for a fantasy that will never, ever happen. I’ve seen the numbers for some of the orgs I’ve worked for and it’s hilariously skewed toward that stuff. The real answer is to pivot to different games. Embrace indies and games that don’t have MTX. You’re never gonna get the AAAs back in the bottle.

Right! So accepted “science” can become pseudoscience once further discoveries are made. I think we all agree on that. The question being debated in this thread, I think, is whether evopsych will also eventually be found to be a pseudoscience. To be clear, I am not proposing we try and guess the future, but to look at the state of the science now and extrapolate that as best we can into the future.

I am a complete lay(wo)man here, so I’m not casting aspersions either way. I would need to do a lot more research for that. I see the other arguments devolving into semantics and rhetoric though instead of focusing on that core conceit.

So you feel any confidence in evopsych as a science? Why or why not? And if those same arguments could be applied to phrenology prior to its official debunking, how valid is that confidence?

I guess what I’m getting at is: Is there a way you can explain why evopsych is a valid science where phrenology is not, without relying on an argument that a phrenologist would also make? That’s a tough set of criteria, but I think it’s required.

In your mind, how do you think a phrenologist would respond to that explanation?

Give me Donkey Kong Country HD you cowards

Not like we aren’t feasting right now anyway. Baldur’s Gate, Pathfinder, Pillars of Eternity, Skald, Wasteland. I would love a Dragon Age spinoff that went back to its roots though.

Thanks for the info! I might check it out then, seeing as you mentioned FC3/4. Not my favorite games but they can be enjoyable when I want to turn my brain off and stealth kill across the land.

I think you’re in luck on your final point. This trailer is for the steam release this week, I think.