Muehe

P.S.: Stellt sich raus die haben noch kein Wahlprogramm geschrieben, wird noch verhandelt und bis "Anfang Juni" soll es fertig sein.

Es gibt ein vorläufiges Programm und es gibt eine FAQ-Seite. Liest sich auf den ersten Blick grob satisfaktionsfähig. Money Quotes:

Wie werdet ihr im Parlament abstimmen?

Natürlich nehmen wir unser gewähltes Amt ernst! Unsere Abgeordneten können, wie alle anderen, ganz normal reden und abstimmen – was wir auch tun werden! Wir selbst sagen ja, dass wir Wandel in der Politik brauchen. Wir werden also auch ernsthaft abstimmen. Wie genau, das machen wir an unseren Werten und Forderungen fest, sowie an den Ergebnissen der Runden Tische

Warum schließt ihr euch nicht mit anderen Parteien wie der Klimaliste zusammen?

Es stimmt, dass eine Aufspaltung in mehrere Parteien oder sonstige politische Vereinigungen dazu führt, dass die Gruppierungen sich gegenseitig Stimmen „wegnehmen“. Wir sind jedoch keine normale Partei, sondern wir wollen das Parlament mit vergleichsweise unkonventionellen Methoden richtig aufmischen. Mit uns wählt man also nicht nur gute Klimapolitik, sondern auch den Protest ins Parlament!

Wenn jetzt Leute, die vorher links/grün gewählt haben, stattdessen “Pöbler” wählen, die keine Ausschussarbeit machen und am Ende nicht mal abstimmen (klingt für mich so), dann kommen weniger sinnvolle Maßnahmen durch, nicht mehr.

Aktivismus kann jetzt alles mögliche heißen von Farbbeutel schmeißen bis hinter jeder Rede den Cicero machen und sagen: "Im Übrigen meine ich der Klimawandel muss weitestmöglich gestoppt werden!". Ich würde denen da im Zweifel schon erst einmal zutrauen innerhalb wenn auch am Rande der Hausordnung zu operieren, und ein Gegengewicht zur Klimawandelleugnung von AfD und Konsorten wäre glaube ich halt echt nicht schlecht. Lässt die "normalen" Grünen wie vernünftige Verhandlungspartner aussehen. Und uns läuft halt echt die Zeit davon, wir brauchen mehr Druck. Wie gesagt, ist das letzte Parlament vorm Point-of-no-return.

Muss mal gucken was die sich denn so ins Wahlprogramm geschrieben haben...

Du also ganz ehrlich, eigentlich bin ich da ja bei dir, aber bei dem hanebüchenen Schneckentempo was bei dem Thema an den Tag gelegt wird hätten wir in diesem konkreten Fall die "Pöbler" schon vor 2-3 Dekaden im Parlament brauchen können glaube ich. Jetzt sind wir mit der Situation konfrontiert das wir noch knapp 5,5 Jahre Zeit (bis 2030) haben um die globalen Treibhausgasemissionen zu halbieren(!), sonst haben wir hier echte Probleme am Arsch (sagt das IPCC). Das ist knapp eine Legislaturperiode im Europaparlament. Glaubst du echt wenn wir die gleichen Figuren hier weiter Dienst nach Vorschrift schieben lassen wird das was? Ich hab ja meine Zweifel und überlege halt ernsthaft da mal ein paar Wadenbeißer wie die LG vorbeizuschicken, vor allem vor dem Hintergrund des OP...

I take it you didn't play ranged weapons then. :D They tried to modernise the combat and kind of made it worse, except ranged combat though. Free aim was just a lot better than target locking in earlier games. But melee in 3 wasn't really fun. That said, huge battles generally worked better in 3 and there were a lot more of them with a lot more NPCs involved, so that was kinda cool. Magic was also a bit more fun. But yeah, the game was overly ambitious in many ways and that hurt it a lot, even if you *disregard the clusterfuck of a release and its aftermath...

Well yeah, there is no beating 1 & 2, but it still holds up IMHO. Huge world with no loading screen in sight, passable story and side-quests. But what was really great about that game was the music. Combat was meh though, still a Gothic game after all.

I think Gothic 3 was actually quite a solid game with the community patches. That said, the official state of the game is simply insulting to this day, because after the catastrophe of a release it had the developer and publisher parted ways and the game was never properly fixed by either of them.

This messy and very public divorce is also the main reason the Gothic series died, the publisher (Jowood) retained the rights and gave it to other developer studios which created games that more or less flopped (G3 expansion, Arcania). But what do you expect from a publisher that lets the game get fixed by fans instead of actually paying people for it. I mean at least they gave them access to the source, so that's something, but still...

(not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole)

How is it hyperbole? All artificial neural networks have "hallucinations", no matter their size. What's your magic way of knowing when that happens?

What the fuck kind of argument is this? Courts aren't supposed to play politics, they are supposed to enforce the law. And if you want to do that in a genocide case you have to prove intent. Gallant made several public statements that can interpreted in that way.

I think you’re probably saying that’s what an Opinion article is for.

Correct.

But a news article that doesn’t state its biases is not unbiased. And I haven’t seen any news articles where bias is stated.

True, no human produced piece of writing can ever be truly free of bias.

That said:

Normal news article: Best effort of not applying your biases and just reporting raw facts.
Opinion news article: Intentionally applying bias to contextualise the raw facts.

That's all there is in this distinction, but that's nonetheless important I would say.

I don’t know what ‘an environmentalist’ is - as discussed, the news made it up. But as one, would you please define it and explain your bias, y’know, like a news reporter would?

As per: http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=environmentalist

1 definition found for environmentalist

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :

environmentalist
n 1: someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution [syn: environmentalist, conservationist]

My bias is that I have been hearing from reputable sources that we are destroying or at the very least damaging the ecosystems that supports our species for all of my conscious life. Literally all of it. Doing so seems like a bad idea.

By the way, today I learned there is apparently an older application of this term in the nature-vs-nurture debate amongst anthropologists for people who favour the nurture side of the argument (n2): https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/environmentalist

Anyway, people make up new words when they need them, I still don't understand the confusion...

Mmmnnoo, they didn’t say. You’re suggesting they would? Or that that is normally done?

No, I'm saying they wouldn't self-identify as such unless it's an opinion piece, because that would be introducing bias into their articles instead of reporting on the facts.

So the “as possible” part of the statement is really a kind of magic

Not really, it's just a reminder that every human has inherent biases and writing an entirely neutral article is thus virtually impossible. That doesn't mean journalists should go around and give into these biases without clearly stating that, and making this effort despite knowing you will fail in it is one of many indicators which can help separate serious news sources from propaganda and advertisement outlets.

Who’s not an environmentalist?

Fossil fuel companies?

It was envisioned as a “neutral” term - as factual as possible - but it said on the face of it, “environmentalists said …” meaning not us.

I don't know, I see it as media needing a term to apply to a (back then) relatively new societal movement, and environmentalist seems sufficiently descriptive and neutral to me to fulfil that role.

Are you an environmentalist? You know - one of them?

Yes. Are you? I don't see the problem here.

Maybe the journalist is one themselves. They didn't say? That's the point.

That’s not really contrary to the point, but orthogonal to it.

What? According to the article based on which we are discussing this news that is the point (allegedly). And it is unrelated to your point yes. I'm not entirely sure where you even came up with your point to be honest.

Your argument is the same kind of “consumer rights” argument that I’ve seen everywhere on the internet, because you are implying that there is material harm to the people of Vietnam caused by Steam’s banning. Which is a fairly specious argument. It’s the loss of a luxury item. No one is materially harmed by it.

I guess the consumers, i.e. the people of Vietnam in possession of this luxury item, would disagree with that assessment. Especially if they have sunk significant finances and/or time into their Steam account.

It’s not like Vietnam banned insulin.

Nobody said it is?

And while you may not use the same language, you are effectively saying that every consumer on the planet should have free access to the best products available for whatever “thing” they want. In this case, video games.

Again, what? I'm saying people will want to keep access to something they already paid for, their games on Steam and the according metadata like savegames, multiplayer access, and such. Not sure how you managed to pull this interpretation out of what I said, but be assured it's incorrect.

It’s a de facto argument for free market economic policies.

Since the whole logic chain that led you to this conclusion was already riddled with errors from the very beginning this is simply a non sequitur.

This is an Opinion article, not a news article. In particular, the NYT likes to hide behind these

Well that's very much by design though. News articles are supposed to be as neutral and factual as possible, so with early newspapers a convention arose to mark any article that delivers an interpretation alongside the pure facts as an opinion piece. That doesn't mean it's not a news article and I actually think it's commendable when a news source still tries to follow this convention. Many don't anymore or never even tried to begin with.