• Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
      511·
      2 months ago

      We will never forget the secret ending of Sword Art Online where Kirito finally exits the game, only to find there’s another options menu in the real world.

      /s (but somehow I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually did that)

          • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
            92·
            2 months ago

            Basically season 3. I wouldn’t skip season 2 though - it’s also fantastic, albeit a totally different premise so ymmv.

              • Sat@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
                2·
                2 months ago

                It also has a much different target audience. You might remember the original show being memed by people that it’s a shitty and cringe Anime, but Alicization is much different. The characters are grown up and I highly recommend it.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      44·
      2 months ago

      Eh, with my luck it would be the glitchy alpha version of utopia where it crashed and I had to start back at the beginning the second I walked into the door of the Federal Cupcake Bakery and Fuckatorium.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    677·
    2 months ago

    The scariest part is that real world is, in fact, a hardcore free-for-all PvP realm.

    I’m not talking competition or something. A random person can absolutely come to you at any time, stab or shoot you and you’ll be dead. Forever. No respawns.

    It’s only because people don’t really like being murdered that led them to make and enforce rules on what violence is legitimate that curbed the violence. But even still, anytime, anywhere, by anyone, you can absolutely be killed. And if one day something breaks in the chain that makes police work, we’re super screwed.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      581·
      2 months ago

      It’s not the police that keep us from killing each other, or even laws that do so. Check out law and authority sometime if you’re able. It’s very short and worth a read. We don’t kill each other because we don’t enjoy being killed or killing. We’re social creatures, and don’t want to be shunned. Crimes of passion don’t really change based on laws, but the way we organize society may actually be increasing the number of murders, because some people are desperate enough to kill for food or shelter

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        132·
        2 months ago

        I read half of it. It seems to overidealize the pre-law era to a large degree. Before law we had mass slavery, constant raiding of nearby tribes and nothing to prevent anybody from taking everything from a person. There is definitely a case where laws can become draconian and force people to break them but I’d argue that in most countries law prevent more unwanted behavior than cause it.

        This especially doesn’t apply in modern times since you just need one person to create a private mercenary group to essentially create a mini kingdom within a loosely organised society. That person will very quickly be able to form a successful dictatorship by raiding, enslaving and demanding tribute from nearby settlements.

        Even a laissez faire government with everything legal except violence will essentially make it legal to dump toxic waste on your front lawn everywhere without policing and laws. Toxic waste is currently being dumped with laws just under woefully loose law and I’d argue that we need more laws and regulation to prevent people from doing so.

        I feel like anarchist theory quickly forgets that we had anarchy before law and people quickly formed kingdoms around settlements to defend themselves and aggressive kingdoms where more successful than passive ones.

          • Allero@lemmy.today
            3·
            2 months ago

            Up to first civilizations, and practically also up to, like, XIX-XX centuries in many rural areas.

        • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          Anarchism just won’t work lol. People will band together, larger groups would survive and whoops! It’s countries all over again

          • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            2 months ago

            Anarchism is a lot of work negotiating, setting standards and consequences, balancing forces. Constant politics without an overarching state. Any concentration of capability for violence or resource to be shared must be extremely carefully handled.

            What you are describing is warlords filling a political vacuum caused by chaos.

            Someone has been misrepresenting anarchism to you.

            • Caveman@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 months ago

              I think the point he’s making is that anarchism is one big power vacuum and those are usually filled with warlords and power brokers. Anarchism can still exist within a state such as Christiania in Denmark and from what I’ve heard it works pretty well.

              • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
                2·
                2 months ago

                It does seem like a power vacuum if you are fully convinced that power needs to be centralized.

                I am reminding the thread that the absence of distributed power is chaos, not anarchism.

                Anarchism is anything BUT a power vacuum. All the power is carefully doled out via negotiation and in no way lacking.

                Strong propaganda is devoted to supporting your presumption that power only exists when concentrated, so it does feel natural and common sense to say that.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        4·
        2 months ago

        Really, you can replace police and laws with any form of more or less organized sanctions against the perpetrators.

        Law and authority is a good read, but it shows exactly that - without centralized power, people do (and, according to Kropotkin, people should) put system of unwritten controls all by themselves. And that keeps us from sliding into the savage world where everyone preys on one another. But if something breaks in this chain, if we accept the violence against one another, we’ll get extinct very rapidly.

      • emmie@lemmy.world
        323·
        2 months ago

        What the hell are you talking about. I can assure you that perspective of jail is an excellent deterrent to crime

        Or you know you can go ahead and be sodomized and beaten for 5 years if that’s your choice of things. For sure isn’t mine tho. It’s not even jail but the anal prolapse that is the true deterrent.

        You people are completely detached from reality in the most stupid of ways. my sincere advice is to get real unless you want to self nominate to the Darwin Award

        • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
          10·
          2 months ago

          According to a quick search, the US has the 6th highest incarnation rate per capita but is only 148th lowest in intentional homicide rate. Obviously this is far from conclusive but it suggests there’s no strong correlation. There are likely much more significant factors than how prison-happy a country is.

          This isn’t exactly an in depth study so I could still be wrong, but it’s much more convincing than just some assurance from a random stranger on the internet.

          • emmie@lemmy.world
            112·
            2 months ago

            That is such a shallow glance at statistics that I am not even going to bother discussing it. It’s obvious you have zero grasp on statistical inference.

            It’s literally same error that conservatists propagate with bipoc areas crime rate…

            • nednobbins@lemm.ee
              3·
              2 months ago

              It’s not deeply rigorous but it’s correct reasoning in principal.

              The scientific and statistical standard interpretation of the null hypothesis is that there’s no relationship between the variables in question. It’s up to the researcher to establish an evidence based argument that the null hypothesis should be rejected in favor of some alternative.

              When we “fail to reject” the null hypothesis, we haven’t proved it’s true, we just continue to assume it is until someone proves otherwise.

              In this case, the alternate hypothesis is that there’s a correlation between incarceration and crime rates and the null is that no such correlation exists.

              As of now, the bulk of the research has failed to find such a relationship https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=correlation+incarceration+crime&btnG=

        • Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          5·
          2 months ago

          I’m curious then, and this is not a value judgment. This is a genuine question to understand the perspective. Is the threat of getting abused in jail the only thing keeping you from breaking the law? If you could guarantee no consequences, would you start murdering? Personally, things wouldn’t change for me. Just like I don’t need god as a moral authority, I don’t need law to want to be beneficial to my community.

          • emmie@lemmy.world
            11·
            2 months ago

            The consequences keep me from doing things. I mean do I really need to explain the obvious?

            I am not going to send anyone funny words on lemmy when I am angry to not get banned.

            What user iforglythename wants is to not have bans on lemmy. Let’s see what happens. Let’s see how that will work out

            It’s flabbergasting that this even needs explanation. I think you guys may be so out of touch with nature the whole lemmy reality is bizzare and trippy at this point. Someone needs to be sane here

            • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
              2·
              2 months ago

              The consequences keep me from doing things.

              Personally I don’t murder because I don’t want to and I feel like it’s wrong to do so. Sure there are consequences, but I really don’t need them to stop me from going out murdering people. Perhaps there are people who do need these consequences, but it seems a fair statement to say that most don’t.

              • emmie@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 months ago

                Yea sure yet even online I see many comments that want to kill the rich or kill the pedophiles, Russians or animal abusers or anyone that person thinks they deserve to die.

                In what world you live where it isn’t the majority?

                • 5too@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  2 months ago

                  You’re taking the utterings of keyboard warriors as reflective of reality?

    • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
      331·
      2 months ago

      It’s only because people don’t really like being murdered that…

      No it’s also, and more importantly, because people don’t like murdering

      • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
        142·
        2 months ago

        If not for people’s negative feelings toward being murdered, I would only take <1% of people enjoying murdering for it to be an extinction-level problem.

        • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
          5·
          2 months ago

          Such an incredibly small number of people want to murder that, even though it would only take <1% of people to get rid of the whole population, we are nowhere near that.

          • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            I’m genuinely curious what that number would be if we removed any stigma from admitting to it. I’m having trouble finding reliable numbers for sociopathy, but my unreliable memory from reading The Sociopath Nextdoor was 5% of the population are sociopaths, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable that 20% of those would have people they’d kill if there were no consequences for doing so.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      101·
      2 months ago

      And if one day something breaks in the chain that makes police work, we’re super screwed.

      Sad USA noises

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 months ago

      Not only can they PK, they can cripple you for life. You can be completely fucked way worse than ‘just’ dying.

        • pastermil@sh.itjust.works
          8·
          2 months ago

          I can think of two different ways:

          • going insane and dissociating from reality
          • getting ultra rich, or being born in ultra rich family
          • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
            4·
            2 months ago

            Getting ultra rich won’t save you from suffering. It can put it off a little while, but sickness, loss of loved ones, old age, and death come for us all.

            • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
              21·
              2 months ago

              sickness

              Solved by money, there’s nearly no sickness in the world that you can’t get treated effectively if you pay enough for the privelege.

              loss of loved ones

              The rich don’t love anyone

              old age

              We’re making great strides on this in the medical sector, also solved by money. We don’t have this one truly “solved” yet but I expect a workable solution within 100 years.

              death

              Not if you upload yourself to Xitter and get turned into a chatbot!

              • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
                3·
                2 months ago

                Solved by money, there’s nearly no sickness in the world that you can’t get treated effectively if you pay enough for the privelege.

                Wrong

                The rich don’t love anyone

                Wrong

                We’re making great strides on this in the medical sector, also solved by money. We don’t have this one truly “solved” yet but I expect a workable solution within 100 years.

                Pure fantasy

                Not if you upload yourself to Xitter and get turned into a chatbot!

                Fair enough

        • Match!!@pawb.socialEnglish
          61·
          2 months ago

          ༄༅༅། །རྒྱ་གར་སྐད་དུ། སད་དྷརྨ་པུཎ་ཌ་རཱི་ཀ་ནཱ་མ་མ་ཧཱ་ཡཱ་ན་སཱུ་ཏྲ། བོད་སྐད་དུ། དམ་པའི་ཆོས་པད་མ་དཀར་པོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ། བམ་པོ་ དང་པོ། །སངས་རྒྱས་དང་བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་ཕྱག་འཚལ་ལོ། །འདི་སྐད་བདག་གིས་ཐོས་པ་དུས་གཅིག་ན། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་རྒྱལ་པོའི་ཁབ་ན། བྱ་རྒོད་ཀྱི་ཕུང་པོའི་ རི་ལ་བཞུགས་ཏེ། དགེ་སློང་ཁྲི་ཉིས་སྟོང་གི་དགེ་སློང་གི་དགེ་འདུན་ཆེན་པོ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱང་དགྲ་བཅོམ་པ། ཟག་པ་ཟད་པ། ཉོན་མོངས་པ་མེད་པ། དབང་དང་ལྡན་པར་གྱུར་པ། སེམས་ཤིན་ ཏུ་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བ། ཤེས་རབ་ཤིན་ཏུ་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བ། ཅང་ཤེས་པ། གླང་པོ་ཆེན་པོ། །བྱ་བ་བྱས་པ། བྱེད་པ་བྱས་པ། ཁུར་བོར་བ། བདག་གི་དོན་རྗེས་སུ་ཐོབ་པ། སྲིད་པར་ཀུན་ཏུ་ སྦྱོར་བ་ཡོངས་སུ་ཟད་པ། ཡང་དག་པའི་ཤེས་པས་སེམས་ཤིན་ཏུ་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བ། སེམས་ཀྱི་དབང་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱི་དམ་པའི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་སོན་པ། མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པས་མངོན་པར་ཤེས་པའི་

          ཉན་ཐོས་ཆེན་པོ་ཤ་སྟག་ལ་འདི་ལྟ་སྟེ། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཀུན་ཤེས་ཀཽཎྜི་ནྱ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་རྟ་ཐུལ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་རླངས་པ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་མིང་ཆེན་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་བཟང་པོ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་འོད་སྲུང་ཆེན་པོ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ ལྡན་པ་ལྟང་རྒྱས་འོད་སྲུང་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཆུ་ཀླུང་འོད་སྲུང་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ག་ཡ་འོད་སྲུང་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཤཱ་རིའི་བུ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་མཽད་གལ་གྱི་བུ་ཆེན་པོ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཀཱ་ཏྱཱའི་བུ་ཆེན་པོ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་མ་འགགས་པ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ ན་མ་གྲུ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཀ་པི་ན་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་བ་ལང་བདག་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་པི་ལིན་ངའི་བུ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་བཀྐུ་ལ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་གསུས་པོ་ཆེ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་བྷ་ར་དྭ་ཛ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་དགའ་བོ་དང་། ཚེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཉེ་དགའ་དང་།

        • Hackworth@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.

          The Curse of Greyface included the division of life into order/disorder as the essential positive/negative polarity, instead of building a game foundation with creative/destructive as the essential positive/negative. He has thereby caused man to endure the destructive aspects of order and has prevented man from effectively participating in the creative uses of disorder. Civilization reflects this unfortunate division.

          THE CURSE OF GREYFACE AND THE INTRODUCTION OF NEGATIVISM - Principia Discordia

        • dubious@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 months ago

          yes. you can read my previous comments on how to switch. all i’m trying to do is make people understand how to switch.

          spoiler: it isn’t pretty

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          2 months ago

          They happen, but a plurality on the server has to agree to the change.

          That’s why the power gamers have invested so heavily in all the in game ads saying how creative mode will be awful and PvP is vital to the generation of new content.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
              23·
              2 months ago

              Christ, I’m an old head but I remember way back in the day when people would spend weeks on message boards arguing over the optimal design spec for MMO economies.

              The first time I heard the “wheat domesticated people” hypothesis now popularized in the book “Against the Grain” was on a forum for Asheron’s Call. Also, a bunch of long form research about how agricultural practices impacted social development (wheat giving birth to libertarian yeomen farmers while rice encouraged people to collectivize as a matter of agricultural necessity).

              None of it mattered to the MMO producers, since it all they cared about was farming the player base. But it was a fun time to be a college kid with a direct line to software developers.

  • Mac@mander.xyz
    583·
    2 months ago

    you know how people in Minecraft build all kinds of wonderful and amazing things such as machinery and art and games and all kinds of shit?
    that’s what life would be like if we didn’t have to work to survive.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      301·
      2 months ago

      You have to work to survive in Minecraft, too. Which is to say, all those wonderful things are the product of human labor.

      But in Minecraft, you get to enjoy the surplus of that labor. You don’t have a handful of Whale players draining your reserves with extortionary rents.

    • InternetPerson@lemmings.world
      9·
      2 months ago

      that’s what life would be like if we didn’t have to work to survive

      Which mustn’t be an issue. Most advanced nations produce a surplus of food for example. So much, that an insane amount of it is wasted and never consumed.

      So in principle, sure. Some work is necessary to allow a certain quality of life for all and ensure survival. But if you think about our fucked up wealth distribution, it does not need to be so hard.