And single women, queer women, and women without families are able to survive by working, instead of being in extremely uncertain/abusive situations (or worse).
So without sarcasm: thanks to feminism, women can experience wage-slaving. Better than being treated as subhumans, even if it’s still a crappy life.
Except you also fell for the trap of pretending to be educated. The entire “how to use ‘octopus’ as a plural noun” is an internet clickbait phenomenon, and both linguists and communications experts have chimed in to say that language is not prescriptive based on supposed origins of words/phrases, but rather it is labile and the most correct form of communication is that which is most readily understood – therefore, they agree, saying simply ‘octopus’ or ‘octopuses’ is correct in English, as that is what English speakers already use.
A word becomes distinct from its origins based on the context it is used in - i.e. we’re speaking English in the modern era, derived from generations of English speakers, and we are so far detached from any Greek origins in our language that it may as well not exist; these words have become English words through common use, and thus are subject to the grammatical rules of English. In the future, other words of varying origins with their ‘appropriate’ pluralizations and conjugations may be slowly overwritten by casual or undereducated use, adopting English grammar instead, and as long as that becomes the most common use, it is then the correct one.
After all, language is for communication, and communication requires common understanding, so language is naturally defined by that which facilitates communication - not notions of history or propriety.
I take the opposite approach. If I notice someone is more chatty than I am, I make a point to tell them upfront “hey, I’m usually pretty quiet, but I still enjoy conversations even if they’re a little one-sided”. It’s a good test of character - if they still have a problem with me after I communicated clearly, then we’re not compatible, and I don’t need to worry about them. But I have certainly had friends that would talk my ear off and I’d happily nod and offer small insights or facts, and it worked out. It’s more about finding the right people - instead of trying to become the right person.
Because, for some reason, people think it’s better to smooth over social situations by acting inauthentically than handle any amount of friction or disagreement. But that’s how people end up with entire friend groups they don’t relate to, and feel unhappy.
Personally, I think most people lack the emotional maturity to act authentic to themselves and say ‘fuck the haters’. People who do that tend to end up a lot more satisfied with life than chronic people-pleasers. I would know - I’ve tried both ways, and the people-pleasing only leads to anxiety and shame, like the OP’s meme describes.
Maybe. But multiplayer games exist. And people have a very high standard for what population a game must have for it to be worth playing. People will consolidate into singular pre-made titles, compromising on their desires like they do now, in order to have many other humans to play with.
Maybe AI can be convincing NPCs eventually, but people will want to play games with their friends. They’ll find out eventually if another character is an NPC or human, and they will care.
Even singleplayer games will be subject to this, to a degree. People enjoy playing what their friends play - they like having the same experiences, they like having something in common to discuss, they like the shared experience that brings a sense of community to the fans of a single title or series.
Sure, people could make any game they desire, but it will be isolating. You’re underselling the social desires and needs we all have. Maybe we’ll end up with something similar to Garry’s Mod and Roblox: connected gaming hubs where people can load up any number of experiences - but still being able to include their friends somehow. I think that is much more likely than the concept of a person sitting in the corner of a room with their VR headset, wilting away in a world of their own creation, having lost all connections that would otherwise surround them. Humans naturally fight against that. We’ll experience things we’re not familiar with, as long as we’re experiencing them with other people.
Do you think a “soulslike” is defined by being dark and gritty? I find it odd that you think the inclusion of anything cute or hopeful/friendly would be only a negative. Maybe your preferences are for dark and gritty only, but I assure you that many people enjoy other styles. There’s a charm to there being hope in a dying world, isn’t there?
Besides, I’d say most people define “soulslike” by their gameplay, not aesthetics. Maybe the “git gud” fragile-masculinity crowd needs their unforgiving combat system paired with a dark, ‘masculine’ atmosphere to fulfill their power fantasy, but again, I assure you that many other types of people enjoy those games - especially Elden Ring, which has much broader appeal than the previous souls games.
I’ll wager you’re a toxic “git gud” type that hinges their identity on these types of games, and that’s why the idea of your sacred icon being blemished by comparison to Soulframe upsets you so much. I really can’t see why else anyone would be this angry over a game not being to their preferences. If people enjoy something different than you, let them. :)
You’d be surprised how many steam games have no DRM other than steam itself. And how easy it is to put in a replacement (open-source) dll that acts as a steam emulator and runs the games without steam. I’d say… pretty much every non-AAA game on steam can have DRM removed this way. It’s such barebones DRM that I can’t really find reason to be angry at it.