AlexRogansBeta

A vote for Binjamin

This universe is so ripe for an open-source Elder Scrolls-esque game. Choose your "race", enter the post-Fire Nation war world where the Fire Nation colonists are getting kicked out from their occupied territories and turning into refugees. Xenophobia towards the fire Nation is rampant. Where the Earth kingdom is rebuilding and uncovering more heinous crimes the government committed. There's some subsequent political unrest and civilian movements. The political instability of the formation of the New Republic and founding of the new city. The Water Tribes seek to repopulate the south. Multi-national organizations form. Perhaps a new university that feels the need to locate and preserve precious mystical artefacts lest another war threaten them in the future. Archaeological digs to find the lost library are undertaken, spurred on by the reports of the Gaang. The fighting league starts up.

Meanwhile, you travel the world honing your skills, participating in discoveries, supporting refugees, playing a hand in political stabilization, witness the beginning of the industrial revolution, etc.

It would be a 10/10 open world game.

This is so wildly unnecessary and wildly awesome at the same time

Play Sea of Thieves as a female.

Dang this looks SO close to what I'd want. It's just missing big ass creatures.

I don't have the answer to your question, but I 100% agree. The best space shooter campaign game to date. The creator's latest (Chorus) had a FEEL of Freelander, but it felt really shallow, despite ostensibly being more mechanically complex. And the story was decidedly not compelling.

I dunno why no one, even the creator, can recreate the magic. But I guess that's just a testament to how good the magic was.

Trickle down economics

Alberta can do it. And it's not even an island. Great podcast about it here: https://pca.st/episode/c7de5849-e857-49b0-bdf0-1e47a9394cc6

Sea of Thieves. Always.

The reason you're confused is because 90% of the people in this thread haven't read or understood Foucault, who gave us the best (though certainly not the only) description of neoliberalism. In it's muddled use by every day people and the media, it's meaning has become very confused.

What people here are describing (deregulation, positive valuation of wealth generation, free markets, etc) is just different flavours of liberal capitalism. Neoliberalism isn't that.

Neoliberalism names the extension of market-based rationalities into putatively non-market realms of life. Meaning, neoliberalism is at play when people deploy cost/benefit, investment/return, or other market-based logics when analysing options, making decisions, or trying to understand aspects of life that aren't properly markets, such as politics, morality/ethics, self-care, religion, culture, etc.

A concrete example is when people describe or rationalize self-care as a way to prepare for the workweek. Yoga, in this example, becomes of an embodiment of neoliberalism: taking part in yoga is rationalized as an investment in self that results in greater productivity.

Another example: how it seems that most every public policy decision is evaluated in terms of its economic viability, and if it isn't economically viable (in terms of profit/benefit exceeding cost/investment) then it is deemed a bad policy. This is a market rationality being applied to realms of life that didn't used to be beholden to market rationalities.

Hence the "neo" in "neoliberalism" is about employing the logics of liberalism (liberal capitalism, I should say) into new spheres of life.

A good (re)source for this would be Foucault's Birth of Biopolitics lectures, which trace the shift from Liberalism to Neoliberalism. As well, there's excellent literature coming out of anthropology about neoliberalism at work in new spheres, in particular yoga, which is why I used it as my example here.

Neoliberalism was created, as a term, to describe something real, pervasive, and problematic. It has been co-opted as an underserving boogyman by the left, and co-opted mistakenly by the right as libertarianism. Neither understand it's original formulation and what it names.

So, while you're 100% correct about neoliberalism not belonging to either the left or the right, your basic description of neoliberalism isn't correct. What you describe (deregulation, positive valuation of wealth generation, free markets, etc) is just liberal capitalism.

Neoliberalism names the extension of market-based rationalities into putatively non-market realms of life. Meaning, neoliberalism is at play when people deploy cost/benefit, investment/return, or other market-based logics when analysing options, making decisions, or trying to understand aspects of life that aren't properly markets, such as politics, morality/ethics, self-care, religion, culture, etc.

A concrete example is when people describe or rationalize self-care as a way to prepare for the workweek. Yoga, in this example, becomes of an embodiment of neoliberalism: taking part in yoga is rationalized as an investment in self that results in greater productivity.

Another example: how it seems that most every public policy decision is evaluated in terms of its economic viability, and if it isn't economically viable (in terms of profit/benefit exceeding cost/investment) then it is deemed a bad policy. This is a market rationality being applied to realms of life that didn't used to be beholden to market rationalities.

Hence the "neo" in "neoliberalism" is about employing the logics of liberalism (liberal capitalism, I should say) into new spheres of life.

A good (re)source for this would be Foucault's Birth of Biopolitics lectures, which trace the shift from Liberalism to Neoliberalism. As well, there's excellent literature coming out of anthropology about neoliberalism at work in new spheres, in particular yoga, which is why I used it as my example here.