Katrisia

Try Marvel Rivals (out on December 6th). It reminded me of OW1, but also OW2, of course.

The store is simple, though. It has archetypal builds (or whatever they are called), like "cooldown reduction item", "life steal item", etc. I think the hardest part will be memorizing yet another set of heroes to play decently against them.

Let's move on.

I enjoy MOBAs a lot, but their communities tend to be so toxic... I'm playing other multiplayer games because I am tired of the toxicity (among other things).

I think that's the ambiguity. An AFAB only space is different to a women' (and maybe other feminine identities I'm not aware of) space. The first, AFAB, is about the sex you were born into. The second is about your gender (and here we can even create different groups, but that's beyond the point). The ambiguity comes because each of us uses "female" differently, sometimes to mean this or that. That's the importance of specifying what we mean, especially when creating a club or something similar.

She's a gender critical feminist. But in a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is a gender critical feminist that questions the validity of the concept of gender without ever wishing harm to people (actually trying to see what's helpful to all) and 10 is the raging transphobic lady that belittles and wishes harm to trans people, J. K. Rowling seemed to have moved from 2 to 6-7 (and she probably keeps moving).

This is a very controversial topic as many people think that all gender critical theorists or sympathizers are in the 10. I don't think so, but those who are transphobic are definitely louder.

I personally do not care that much about the survival of entire species (including ours); I care more about the lives of the individuals. To illustrate this, it saddens me when we cause extinctions, but a little more because of the animals that suffered in the process and a little less about the whole "loss" of a form of life. Yet, it all is sad.

How do I deal with this climate change sadness? I guess I don't see it separately from other sad things from humanity (and existence, but let's focus on humanity). I have accepted the fact that most human beings are morally questionable in my book, this causes the world to be worse for everyone in it, and no amount of reasoning with most of them (about the benefit for them and others of being more conscious about their lives) will change it for now.

At some point, some have felt that a better society is just a step ahead of us because it's relatively easy in material terms, but now I feel it much farther as the social factors are not as easy. I guess I have surrendered to a certain idea of psychological determinism. If we imagine a person has an object we want at their reach, while it's out of our reach, and we could get it if they only cooperate, we can feel frustrated when they don't. "Why do they make it so difficult? It's as simple as reaching for the object and grabbing it for us. Just do it! Why are they waiting for? Ugh!". But if we start from the idea that there's a chance they won't help us because they simply can't be bothered (different reasons as to why), and that's probably not fixable, we won't feel that level of frustration for their inaction and we will strategize differently how to get that object.

By the way, I don't think selfishness or self-centeredness or whatever is individualism, nor that altruism is communitarianism. I'm inclined to individualism, but that's what makes me think that just as my life and freedom are valuable, so are others'. I do not like societies that are communitarian because they drown the individual (in false responsibilities, in fear of ostracism, etc.), and I hate that. We have one life and only one and we should be as free as possible, even if that means being unattached, different, whatever. The only rule for that freedom and for everything is ethics. And that's the difference for me, that's how I see it. Not individualistic people versus communitarian people, but people that live without an interest in being ethical (whatever that ends up meaning) and people who do.

So... I think I see a lot of these people and I don't get as frustrated as before. I sigh and continue my day. Reading this last part, it reads a little stoic (learning that I cannot change these parts of society and focusing on the ones we can change). Stoicism is like the ibuprofen of life; paracetamol is pyrrhic skepticism. I'm bad at analogies, lol, but you get the point (I hope).

Prioritizing my health (including my mental health) has helped a lot. Good levels of everything in my body do wonders for my energy, but also my resilience, my mood, etc. Emotional regulation skills, combating stress... I know these are just common recommendations, but I don't have more.

I'm sorry that you're feeling down. It's been a hard time...

Isn't FlyingSquid a she?

I suggest arrows to navigate main comments (I think they also call them "parent comments" or something). As an example, Sync for Lemmy and Now for Reddit have them.

As many have already told you, people need more than just physical companionship.

I'd add that some people cannot be happy even with a healthful environment because of internal or personal issues. For example, certain cluster B personality disorders or traits cause that people feel empty deep down. They will enjoy things for a while, but often return to feeling incomplete, disconnected, etc.

I mean, it's our fault as leftists that it is an echo chamber. We have forgotten how to talk about polemic issues among ourselves. I bet we lemmings have big differences (in the details) but we are afraid of bans or talking to walls, so...

Yes. It worries me that you haven't found them. Either you have but you thought they were stupid anyway because of them being leftists, or you haven't because you do not believe in any way in equality, solidarity, search for knowledge, and many other values the left stands for. This I find difficult to believe.

I think it's like saying that Marxism isn't... let's say, Nietzschean. Those are two ways of looking into problems. In some points, they'll coincide; in others, they won't. I'm bad at analogies. Anyway, if you're a Nietzschean (in this case, if you believe intersectionality is the proper way of looking at social phenomena), of course Marxism (probably in all its different branches) will look incomplete and like they're building from the wrong premises to you. But if you were Marxist, you'd think the same of Nietzschean philosophy (or intersectionality).

I'm sure both have excellent reasons to believe in a framework or another, but we should not forget they are just that, not truth™. I say this not to fall into an absolute relativism but to prevent any side from falling into a conviction of moral superiority. We cannot be so sure about it.