I started late into Cata and really got going in Mists and absolutely loved it. I think OP is having a “back in my day” nostalgic moment

“Try” is an issue. What if someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to burn off some steam by assaulting people?

Not thinking about ethics isn’t the same as not having an ethical framework you most closely adhere to

The Tories pissed it all into the channel as far as I can tell

How would telling him benefit either of you? As a random stranger in the internet, you don’t need to be the reason he lost his innocent view of the world.

If he starts asking direct questions, give age appropriate answers but I don’t see a reason to tell him unprompted

Me too. Every solo run I play is on B42 and I have to remind myself of all the cool features we’re missing when I hop back into the game with friends

B42 is a beta branch like you say, you have to opt in to play it. The current version does do multiplayer, I’m currently running my own server for my friends on the current version

There are plenty of “private” servers that are technically open to anyone. Just follow the rules and enjoy the game.

You’ll see a lot of “B42” or “build 42” being talked about. This is the most recent major update that is still in beta. It doesn’t have multiplayer but does offer A LOT of new and improved features.

Fantastic game that gets so much deeper with every (infrequent) major update

To call it useless is just untrue. There are many possibilities, Crypto is just a black hole eating the hype and funding that would otherwise go into valuable tech

We need to ignore them, they’re obfuscating from the real issue. Payment processors should not have the ability to police content, full stop, end of discussion.

The person who tattled is absolutely irrelevant and a distraction

It’s so crazy to talk about “innocent unless presumed guilty” as a policy that exists in western society, when we are drowning in cases to the contrary.

That is patently false. This really makes me think that you have absolutely no concept of what you’re talking about. The “court of public opinion” often assumes guilt based off of an accusation and that is exactly why “believe women” is so dangerous.

What sets rape apart from, say, immigration violations or illegal drug use or terrorism charges or subway fare evasion or CEO murdering isn’t this sacred commitment to “innocent until proven guilty”.

I agree, and this should stay exactly as it is. It’s is one part that is unquestionably beneficial to literally EVERYONE.

Treat allegations of sexual assault with even a fraction of the seriousness put forward to prosecute minor traffic violations. Maybe we can clear that mountainous backlog of uninvestigated rape claims within the victims’ lifetimes.

I absolutely agree. The lack of investigation is the issue, not the fact that women are implicitly believed when they make an accusation. No one should have that privilege.

Because as far as the law is concerned, they ARE NOT a victim until they are proven to be just as the accused IS NOT a perpetrator until they are proven to be. It has absolutely nothing to do with “trustworthyness”, and all to do with due process.

Destroying this legitimately good and absolutely fundamental part of the deeply flawed legal system will not fix this problem. It will only create more. Rage against the machine all you want, I’m absolutely with you. But do so with some critical thought behind it.

Can you tell me how this is relevant to the point I made? How any of that suggests something other than what I said?

If you want to have a conversation, let’s have a conversation but don’t throw data that is irrelevant to the point I made while dodging the point I made.

I think they got the wrong shipment

See, this is the problem. “Believe women” implies that women are telling the truth before an investigation has taken place. If you had read my original comment you’d see that I’m not suggesting women should be treated as they currently are, but that “believe women” specifically is a harmful rhetoric.

If we both want women’s accusations to be taken seriously and investigated as any other potential crime would be, then we’re on the same page and want the same thing. The statement “believe women” does not literally or figuratively mean that though, the problem is the wording. Say what you mean instead of this wishy washy language that is detrimental to the cause.

I don’t think the current legal systems are perfect, but I do think “believe women” would make them fundamentally worse.

How do you handle the issue of future false accusations? And don’t give me the hand wavy “but there are so few false accusations” because that doesn’t matter to the person being accused.

THE core tenet of most legal systems is effectively “innocent until proven guilty”. “Believe women” utterly breaks that, they cannot exist within the same legal framework.

So, would you rather have the legal system change to better serve women by equally investigating their accusations, or by removing “innocent until proven guilty”?

This is exactly right. The “believe women” stance is so childish and naive. “Take women seriously” would be just as effective, less dangerous and fit into every just legal system on the planet

Removed by mod

I’m just waiting for them to say something dumb like “fewer hungry people means less hunger, you’re welcome Gazans”

Because it never stops at just stopping the enemy, the allies could have simply contained Nazi Germany but chose to invade. The US could have continued the war in the Pacific but chose to drop 2 atomic bombs.

Beating the enemy so thoroughly is the only way humans have ever been able to truly end a conflict of that scale, and in that situation if Europe is to beat Russia like that I don’t believe they’d hesitate to start launching nukes.

So we’re stuck in a situation where Europe either risk nuclear war, or an extended border skirmish that could last decades. Both would be devastating