Messages

I admit to not understanding all of this. It's not helped at all by having grown up with media showing people with autism as either being savants or being non-verbal, or in the case of Mercury Rising I think the kid was both.

I feel you; I feel 99% of Autism in media is still stuck in "young guy with dorky haircut who is a math/science savant but has panic attacks when being forced to be social" stereotype, and it grinds my gears. Ironically I feel like the only movie that really spoke to my experience growing up as a girl with a diagnosis, and how I felt how adults would treat me as as soon as they learned of my diagnosis, was this scene from Hotel Transylvania 2 (where the female lead is a vampire and her boyfriend's parents try to "accommodate" her;

It's better to educate people who claim they're neurospicy than to mock them and make actual neurodivergent people feel even more alientated.

I see your point, though when it comes to alienation, I feel like it's just as big of a problem with how these people will spread misinformation, and actively discourage people from getting professional help instead of seeking out blind validation online.

Plus using baby-ish terms like "neurospicy" instead of autism only serves to further stigmatize the actual term autism.

I don't remember if it was before or after having watched a video about how some of those in power basically feel like high supports needs autistics have no place in society.

That is a genuine problem, which I feel is further amplified by many online commentators' treatment of any attempt at categories or sub-categories of the autism spectrum as somehow evil and fascist.

It grinds my gears that not only has there been a blatant attempt to rewrite history in regards to Aspergers syndrome; pretending that it fell out of use over Hans Asperger's nazi ties - it didn't, the diagnosis was retired because it was deemed to similar to high-functioning autism, and the diagnosis itself was never used while Asperger was active, but coined in 1976 by brittish psychologist Lorna Wing, but I've even seen people claim that the terms "high-functioning" and "low-functioning" themselves were an evil nazi invention.

The problem is, who benefits from a wide spectrum having all clear sub-categories removed? I sure don't. If I say I have Autism, it comes with the caveat that I also have to spend ages explaining where exactly I am on the spectrum and how my mind works, whereas if I say I have Aspergers, most people will just get the basic gist of it relatively easily.

And this doesn't serve people with high support needs either, because all this discourse that muddies the lines and people using baby terms instead of real diagnosis to describe autism only makes it harder for regular people to understand what it is and how it works, and if it's harder to understand, people will also find it harder to accept.

[actually]

Why would I WANT to label myself as being different?

Trust me, LOTS of teenager can and will do anything to differentiate themselves, because to them different = special. Trust me, as a woman on the spectrum myself, I've seen a huge overlap between the rethoric around people who self-diagnose and girls who claim "they are not like other girls", because they don't identify with the media stereotypes of girls/think being neurotypical means you must be someone who always know what to do and never feel overwhelmed or embarrassed.

Secondly, I've never claimed that ALL attempts at self-diagnosis is wrong, or that people can´t do things like wearing headphones or fidget with something in their pockets if it helps their well-being. I don't think anyone here did.

Yeah, that's one of my peeves. In many cases it seems like self-diagnosing as some type of neuroatypical condition is essentially modern-day astrology, like explaining someone's personality in terms of a zodiac sign by fitting very common behaviors and experiences to a generic stereotype, and then identifying very intensely with that label. (And in the worst cases, use it as an excuse to not take responsibility for unacceptable behavior, e.g. some people who are self-diagnosed narcissists, BPD, etc.)

I think it's another case like people claiming allergies or gluten-intolerance without a medical diagnosis. It just makes things harder for those actually suffering from it. But people will always look for some simple explanation for whatever is wrong in our lives, hoping that will fix us.

Like what Snarky said, the problem isn't people who use self-diagnosis as a stepping-stone to get a real professional diagnosis (and it's not as hard today as some make it out to be), it's people treating it as a simple way to excuse crappy behaviors whilst simultaneously treating it as a sign of how "special" they are.

And this is a problem, because in order to get legal protections, like workplace accommodations, anti-discrimination laws excetera, you need to have clear legal definitions of what disabilities or disorders people have, supported by licenced professionals, not feelings and a random quiz someone took online.

In my homeland Sweden, you can report discrimination to the equality ombudsman, but this system only works because we have clearly defined protected groups.

When it comes to things like 'neuro-spicy', I tend to hear it from people who themselves talk about having neuro-divergences (more "neuro-spicy people like me" rather than "neuro-spicy people like them") so I guess it's only insulting if you are insulted by it. Either way I still hate the word

To this I'd say I'm reminded of the quote from the teacher in Mean Girls;
"You all have GOT to stop calling each other sluts and whores, it just makes it OK for guys to call you sluts and whores"

It also ties into a larger problem of young people online who self-diagnose based on the idea that things like feeling lost and directionles in life, not finding friends with the same interests in class and feeling stressed out in packed crowds isn't just normal things most teens struggle with, but a sign that they are special and different from all the other NPCs. It's essentially treating neurodivergence as a quirky acessory and, as a reddit user put it;
"Neurospicy" doesn't need accomodations, it needs T-shirts and decals. "Neurospicy" doesn't have meltdowns, high unemployment rates, difficulties forming and maintaining relasionships, or suffer from a year of burnout.

It grinds my gears when Social media algorithms make people use baby-talk on serious topics.

And yes, flowery euphemisms has for polite company always existed, but at least the Puritans and Victorians tried to be dignified about it;
saying "He passed on" or "Her life was cut short" is something you could sincerely say at a loved one's funeral, but sewer-slide? Unalive?

Those literally sound like 4Chan jokes.

And don't even get me started on "neuro-spicy", that language make real struggles look like a quirky add-on. If you don't get why the term is insulting, imagine calling somebody in a wheeelchair "spine-spicy" or someone hearing-impaired "ear-spicy".

Anyway, my point, if I had any was that I can understand anyone being hesitant to make a game this month. My suggestion for anyone who isn't part of the group is to focus on the characters first. Make sure to have well rounded characters. I've never liked any character who only has one defining characteristic, where it be that they're gay or autistic or whatever. If in doubt, just write characters you'd like to be friends with. Their sexuality can go unsaid or only mentioned once in passing. Or maybe just hinted at by background objects, like photos.

If there's one advantage being on the spectrum has given me, it's my ability to remember weird facts, so I figured I could share some Wikipedia links to cool real-life historical people that may serve as inspiration to anyone unsure how to write an LGBT+ character, because drawing from real life history is my go-to when I feel stuck.

In no particular order;

The Public Universal Friend - A quaker preacher who claimed to have been reborn as a genderless being, and mostly known for founding The Society of Universal Friends, as well as possibly being the first recorded non-binary person

Julie d'Aubigny - A bisexual female opera singer and accomplished fencer, famous for having set a convent on fire to rescue a girlfriend, and on another occasion having sword-dueled three men in a single night

Chevalier d'Eon- A French knight and spy who after years of service came out as a woman and started wearing female clothes. Upon death, the chevalier was revealed to be biologically male.

Catalina de Erauso - A person who, after being placed in a convent to be raised into a nun, escaped and started wearing men's clothes and became a conquistador in South America, eventually becoming known as "the lieutenant nun"

Willem Arondeus - A gay man who was a member of the Dutch resistance during WW2. He was caught and executed by the nazis, and his last words were "Tell people that homosexuals are not cowards."

I hope any of these links may prove inspiring.

Shouldn't the theme be "LGBTQIA+"? 
It seem a bit wrong to leave out the Asexuals. (Especially since there's already a subsection of the LGBTQIA+ community who thinks that they shouldn't be included in the lineup.)

I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any intentional exclusion, and the theme is meant to explore the general subject of gender and sexual diversity.

One of the theme deciders here, chiming in to confirm the exclusion was entirely unintentional.

For what it's worth, I myself am asexual and aromantic. I very much consider asexuals and aromantics to be part of the community (and yes, I've seen exactly the sorts of arguments you meant, Danvzare) and I sincerely apologise for suggesting otherwise.

I admit I struggle with the vocabulary of LGBTQIA+ issues. My choice of words/acronym wasn't suitable. This is part of the reason I suggested to Emma that we link articles on gender and sexuality; the absolute last thing we wanted to do is dictate arbitrary lists of what is and isn't "acceptable"!

Again, I really do apologise and I hope this doesn't deter anyone from participating.

I feel that this has been a problem in rainbow discourse for a while now; while I can understand the need for inclusion, the purpose of acronyms is that they are short and easy to spell, and the more letters and symbols, the harder it gets, and mistakes are made. Drawing on my own experience of being on the spectrum, I learned a long time ago to simply accept what looks like honest mistakes and choose my battles, and that I have to bear in mind that not everyone will stop and ponder every letter they type before sending it.

As for this month's theme, I've been wanting to get back in the game-making for some time now, but I'll probably need to ponder game ideas that could reasonably accommodate the theme first. One idea I've had for a while doesn't involve the protagonist getting into any romantic situation at all, but at the same time I don't feel like simply omitting a romantic subplot would be enough to count as asexual representation.

Hi, your project looks cool. Lightweight low-poly models, cartoonish graphics. Sometimes I want to play something like this, to get away from the modern super reality in games.

I'm glad you liked it! I've always been drawn to more cartoonish looks myself in my drawings, modeling and art in general.

This is so telling.

Well, yes. Thanks to geography in the region, Sweden has had Finland acting as its de-facto bulwark against the only obvious regional threat, so basically Finland has paid for Sweden's national defence simply by existing as an independent country after WW2, a thing that we very nearly failed to do and paid considerably for. Seeing Sweden and Finland both in NATO seems to me like a solid way to create a credible framework for Nordic defence collaboration, allowing Sweden to play its part in a potential future conflict. To me, personally, seeing Finland and Sweden delaying joining NATO until so very late, doing so only after a threat had solidified on European soil, is a great shame.

Better late than never!

Well, the trouble with joining NATO is that it doesn't have a good track record of actually sending aid to members at war, and the US has mainly used it as a pretext to drag other nations into their oil wars. Plus now that Trump is president, much of his platform was centered on an America-first policy that would slash most foreign aid and interventions.

I don't see anything worth sacrificing the status as a neutral ground for with NATO, because the only other defense strategy Sweden has apart from Finland is banking on the fact that few wartime leaders want to antagonize a nation selling arms to both sides.

I checked an Austrian online phone book and couldn't find the surname (but maybe they just filtered the search requests?)

Adolf is still a valid first name. I even knew someone about my age with this name. It was a family tradition that the oldest son has the name Adolf (quite a common thing to do in Austria) and I think his parents had a bit of "we don't let this asshole ruin our family tradition" attitude. However, as far as I know, he didn't continue this tradition with his own kids

On one hand, in Sweden, we've had several kings named Adolf (the latest being Gustav VI Adolf who died in 1973), but Swedish naming trends are very cyclical (so baby names that are super popular then becomes super unpopular for a few decades before getting popular again), and Adolf seems to have been a name that was already out of fashion here when the war started, and then simply never got a resurgence afterwards.

As a non-American, I do hope Trump continues to rattle European nations awake from their slumber when it comes to American world-police status. He wasn't wrong when he raised the issue of Europe trusting America to save their asses in case a conflict broke out and with Ukraine we've seen over and over again how utterly unprepared the UK, Germany and France have been to face any kind of extended conflict, as they cannot even scrounge up munitions to support a more limited one on the edge of Europe, let alone hope to defend themselves if needed. As difficult a time as Trump and his isolationist policies may bring to parts of the world, I see potential for developing better futures outside of the US as long as our leaders take what Trump says seriously enough, instead of laughing in his face as they did last time around.

My homeland of Sweden has never relied on USA for protection, military or otherwise.

Whenever the Russian bear starts stirring, the Swedish strategy for the last millenia has been counting on the fact that if Russians wanted to invade Sweden,
they'd have to go through Finland first.

Sorry for my misunderstanding, I should have looked at the linked article more closely.

The Kristallnacht was a huge topic in the news, together with some controversies regarding right-wing politicians that sadly gained more power recently here in Austria.

I agree that an incredible amount of events happened on this days (including your birthday if I saw this correctly - belated happy birthday )

Thank you, and I'm glad to have been able to clear things up.

That it's also my birthday was the main reason I looked up historical events happening in that day in the first place.

I honestly think this post is very offending and inappropriate.
Are you assuming, just because something terrible happened a long time ago on this day, suddenly German members of this forum will commit genocide? As far as I know, there are not even elections today, that would make this post in any way relevant.
If you want to commemorate victims of the event, that's fine, but there are other (and better ways) than blaming readers that have nothing to do with it.

I am sorry if this came across as inappropriate, and it was in no way my intention to blame german forum members for genocide.

This was merely intended as a humorous observation in November 9th in german history, because while yes, the Kristallnacht did happen on that date, several other significant events in German history also happened on the very same day, to the point it's even called "Schicksalstag" by german historians, the most recent and notable being the fall of the Berlin wall, which to my knowledge did not lead to any bloodshed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_November_in_German_history

In short, this post was meant as a funny observation on how several historical events, some terrible, but some being a push for democracy, all happened on the same date despite being decades apart. I failed to take into account how the horrors of the Kristallnacht might have been the first event on people's minds, and I apologize for not making this clearer.

I would be glad to hear more people's opinions on this, and if you or other people still find this thread in bad taste after my reply, feel free to lock or delete this post if you feel so.

@Perpetuall I was pleasantly surprised to see such a thoughtful reseponse adressing each point.  An interesting read.

You are implying that, without laws and a way to enforce them, that the crime rate would stay within reasonable limits, just through the personal restraint and good nature of people?

I wanted to imply that this society produces the reasons for people to go against each other. You imply that there is some sort of human nature that needs to be tamed.. by other people. And you should also keep in mind that law enforcement usually doesn't prevent these crimes, but merely punish them.

I'm gonna just mostly ignore the weirdly personal slant of your reply to me, as it was obvious from my post that I was talking about society in general, and not a private desire to cause death and pain to others. I'll just take it as the childish attempt to troll that I suspect it is.

I'm sorry if it came across like a personal slant or trolling, that was not my intention. I was also talking about the society in general. But that's exactly the issue: Why is it always the others and not you? I meant the question seriously: Would you behave shitty against other people, just because you don't have a force stopping you from doing so? I would say that the often violent competitive behavior derives from the society we live in. If you don't have a private desire to inflict pain on others, why do other people have it?

My problem with people arguing for the abolishment of prisons and police force is that not all criminals become criminal because some easily explained social circumstances like poverty and disenfranchisement.

I've heard enough testimonies from women in my life that I think simply getting dangerous men off the streets, even if they can't or won't be rehabilitated, is enough of a goal on it's own.

And while the majority of people has empathy and human decency restraining them from doing crimes even if there was no fear of consequences, it only takes a small minority lacking this to cause an untold amount of damage to everyone. Yes, many people get into crimes because of society, but lots of crime, like sexual or domestic abuse and crimes against children, happens because some people are sociopaths who will only respond to the threat of punishment.

As today is the ninth of November, I just want to ask any Germans reading this to please don't go crazy and change the course of your nation again today.

Thank you.

I miss when UI design was done by people who knew what they were doing. 

I agree with everything here and want to add that I also hate how modern games all seem to have decided that all UI need to be white Helvetica font on a darkened background.

Remember when mainstream game UI would be artworks in themselves; fun images with patterns and decorations?
A fantasy game could have text trying to emulate parchment scrolls, WW2 games had typewriter fonts, sci-fi games had text and numbers looking like futuristic tech, and game UIs in general had at least some attempt to stand out but also fit the rest of the game aesthetic.

Democracy isn't about freedom anyway, it's about control just like every other form of government.

Yes, we have governments because without control we are horrible. I don't understand why you present control as a negative.

Ah, because without cops, you would be running around killing, robbing and raping people? But with the government in charge, you don't?

Not agreeing with Pertpetuall though. A (democratic) state is not about controlling people, it's about operating a capitalist nation-state.

We already tried having a society without cops in Sweden. It was called the Viking age.

Be careful you don't cut yourself on all that edge.

Seriously, no one is claiming democracy is a flawless system, but it's been better than every other system implemented so far. Also, most actual democracies don't have the idiotic two-party system and electoral college the US has. It's like saying we should abolish healthcare altogether because USA has a terrible version of it.

Also, panarchy and small communes and micronations? Those are even more vulnerable into devolving into cults, being toppled by other nations and/or have their systems toppled by a few strong and ruthless leaders. If anything, it just reminds me of the "Soverign citizen" movement in the US, and all the tinfoil hats it attracts. Also, in the case of Panarchy, as defined by wikipedia;

In an 1860 article, de Puydt first proposed the idea of panarchy: a political philosophy that emphasizes each individual's right to freely choose (join and leave) the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. A proponent of laissez-faire economics, he wrote that "governmental competition" would let "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members."

Yeah, what's to stop somebody from abusing it by committing a crime and just go "nuh-uh, I don't want these laws to apply to me"?

 It reminds me of those libertarian dudes that wanted to start a crypto-island and, in a mask-off moment, one of the guys responsible let slip that there wouldn't need to be any age of consent on the island.

Spoiler

[close]

Any group of individuals can come together and agree to live by a specific set of rules, even children can do that.

You clearly haven't read Lord of the Flies. Heck, I've worked in daycare and I can tell from experience that it would devolve into the oldest and strongest deciding everything if we adults weren't around to ensure everyone had to respect each other and no one was allowed to beat one another.

Thank you,

Nice to see you back.

I finished Vampire Vigilante.

Good-looking game - so much so that I had to update my graphic card drivers to play it.

The gameplay and story are basic but that's a good start.
I died once because I kept misplacing the camera inside the heroine.

I'm glad to hear it!