GoodbyeBlueMonday

I had read your initial comment as insinuating the previous commenter was supporting hamas, and when someone directly challenged you on it, you didn't reject that accusation.

So if you just wanted to point out the irony, consider my comment as much a non sequitor as your comment on its irony, which is - I suppose - at least irony-adjacent in itself.

Do you get mad at geologists for explaining why volcanoes erupt and kill people?

There's a difference in understanding and supporting, or considering something morally correct.

As another example: I understand why some folks get sucked into gangs. If someone grows up in a crumbling school system, falls through the holes in whatever is left of a social safety net, has no proper familial support, and sees nothing but violence and economic despair day-to-day, joining a gang suddenly becomes a viable path to prosperity. Exceedingly dangerous, but this hypothetical teen can look around and see they're likely to have a shit future regardless, so why not take that chance, right?

So this isn't me saying that I support gang violence, but I can understand why it happens. Which is why my politics are what they are: we don't need to just beat the shit out of gang members in the streets, but give folks support so they don't feel like joining a gang is the only way to survive.

The other poster is (I think) making a similar kind of argument. What the fuck else is some kid in that situation going to grow up to be? Some folks will make it out alright, sure: but on the whole it's a recipe for despair, which often leads to horrific acts. It doesn't make the acts right, but we can understand a little more about the why.

What kind of legislation, though? Loot boxes seem like an easy one to write: gambling is illegal already in a lot of places. When it's just exploitative greed, I'm not sure how it's technically so different from charging exorbitant rates for swag at a baseball game or something. Or charging a few thousand bucks for a purse at some high-end fashion retailer.

To be clear: I loathe the FOMO trends in game development, overpriced skins, micro/macro-transactions, and all the "credit/XP boosters" type bullshit. Turning money into ingame currencies to obfuscate actual prices, the general design of games frontloading fun and then squeezing dollars out of you to feel that same high again....I'm just skeptical that there's anything to do about it from a legal perspective that doesn't apply to most of the rest of the capitalist enterprises out there. Please though, I want to be wrong about this, so any examples of how to curb some of these excesses would be great.

Didn't you just lay out why it is a social problem, though? Men are disproportionately abusing folks because they're disproportionately in power.

Clearly testosterone plays a major role in causing aggressive behavior, and men tend to have more testosterone, but that also isn't a clear-cut division between groups, and folks with lower testosterone can certainly still be aggressive monsters. Oversimplifying the problem isn't going to fix things.

I'm all for it! Balancing by buffing rather than nerfing seems to be best, in most cases.

Right? Would be easy enough for a DM to just improvise if they don't want the players using everything. Big ticket items have inscriptions that terrify anyone they try to sell it to, which is itself a plot hook. Maybe it's all cursed. Or they get arrested by the local authorities on suspicion of trafficking in stolen goods. Or even just have another adventuring party steal it from them somehow.

Depends on the abilities of the party, but snatching away their spoils after they get away sounds even more fun than not letting them take it in the first place.

We don't disagree: there's a short-sightedness that causes folks to say things like "once the boomers die out, things will be great". There are systemic issues that gauze the greed and fear and violence, and the folks that get swept up in these movements are in large part products of their environment, as we all are.

So we need to change the environment, but otherwise well-meaning folks don't want it to change because they benefit from it, even when they are vaguely aware that there are monsters out there that keep it that way. I'd like to think there's more liberals/moderates who would be allies against fascism if this kind of thing can be communicated in a way that doesn't alienate folks, but I'm also sympathetic to arguments that fiery language is necessary to rattle people out of comfort zones... So in sum, thanks for the good discussion.

Call it pedantry if you want, but the fascists themselves are what truly "makes fascism possible".

Yes, there are plenty of folks have culpability in allowing these fucks gain control, from short-sighted collaborators who just want profit, idiots who think "they can't really be that bad", but there's an extent to which I think we should be careful about victim-blaming well-meaning (but naive) folks who believe that Liberty and Justice will win the day (being misled by whitewashed historical narratives who erase the boots on the ground required to make social and political changes - and the organization necessary to resist the rise of fascists).

I get your point, and clearly (from the paragraph I just typed) agree to an extent - I just think it's reductive to the point of undermining the movements against fascism when "liberals" all get thrown in the same basket.

Minotaurs, if anything like their brahman brethren, can get nutrition from all kinds of roughage that us puny primates can't. So while we're scrambling around for nuts and goodberries, they can make a meal of all the weeds sprouting in terrible soil, and the odd hay bale lying around to feed someone's horses.

TL;DR: They could feasibly turn what we consider indigestible garbage-plants into calorie-rich milk.

No, I just didn't think the second part negated the first part. I read it as the defense being to some degree legitimate, but that he was doing so out of self-interest. I was trying to underscore how absurd his so-called defense was.

In other words, my apologies! I didn't intend for my attempt at an explanation as criticism of you, or start some pointless quibbling internet argument (because I imagine we're all tired of those). Take care out there.

While the general "can't fault a man for protecting his children" is a milquetoast statement we can all agree with, it's obfuscating what really happened.

He wasn't chasing away a coyote with a pointed stick: the dude posted a bizarre attack (name-calling, non sequiturs, claims of fraud) on attorneys and the judge for what appears to be a legitimate inquiry.