*ness voice* okay

Parasitic

sometimes a piece of art may be outside of your capacity to experience for whatever reason, and its fine to be sad about that (im certainly sad about a lot of the games i can not ever play) but it doesn't necessarily mean you have been categorically wronged by its creators.

There is no obligation for a developer of a game to change an artistic decision about their game to make it more accessible, and there is no obligation for a player of a game to experience the game as close to the intended experience as possible.

i think it's completely unobjectionable to say "i'd prefer to do what i like with this and experience it on my own terms instead of the developer's" and do whatever you feel inclined to on your end to bring that about. IMO modding always will be the be-and-end-all of accessibility too, so i'm extremely broadly in favor of it. i bring up the idea of a developer's vision not to imply that's the de facto most correct or artistically worthwhile version of a game but as a point of reference for understanding where the priorities were in its development. tl;dr of my stance is pretty much. a developer is within their rights to create whatever kind of game they want. the player base is within their rights to react to and engage with that game in whatever way they want. what the developer is not entitled to do is forbid or prevent players reacting to or engaging with their game in unintended ways. what the players are not entitled to do is demand that developers preemptively spend development resources on offering them the tools to do this.

21 August 2026

I got my magnetic Jax and Ribbit keychain and how ironic is it that the magnets inside were put in wrong and they push each other away instead of sticking together ? :')

Oh they are supposed to be like that, oh thats so funny 💀💀💀

no, it's not a perfect full circle moment, but it's a huge step for her

*nods* Mario will fuck the flagpole

These fucking pieces of shit think that you should go to jail for having a miscarriage and should be forced to have a c section by court order “for the good of the fetus”. But at the same time, they also think the parent’s right to abuse their kid and keep them from accessing medical care or education should be protected.

It only appears contradictory because Republicans market heavily at female voters and clothe their fascism in pretty words. It's never "parents' rights". It'll always be "father's rights".

Patriarchy places childbearing firmly in the hands of moms, and since it is practically the only place that conservative women can have true power and agency (so long as they don’t challenge the patriarchy and/or white supremacy in a meaningful way), a lot of women do zealously fight for the right to abuse their children, prevent them from getting education or healthcare, all in the name of parental rights.

idk, rejoice that we might get the good autocorrect back again?

based based based based based based based based based based based based

@halfaqueen peer reviewed tags because they're so on point

You can actually learn a lot from it if you're willing to interrogate things such as "why did I completely believe this until I saw someone directly on the thread debunk it?" and perhaps "are there any particular preconceptions the original claim is playing into to Confirmation Bias its way into being believed with no evidence?" and "How susceptible am I to believe something because it confirms biases I hold or it makes for a satisfying narrative?". And then trying to apply the things you learned from that exercise the next time you catch yourself believing a similar claim without looking into it.