I fundamentally cannot agree with that take. How do you fix something if you don't know why the current thing doesn't work?
Is the interface obtuse?
Are the controls too manually complex to operate?
Is the tutorial instruction flat-out wrong?
Are they talking out off their ass about something they heard on hearsay?
Were they taught secondhand, and poorly, by someone else on how to operate Thing?
Please don't try to imprecisely apply soft inclusivity to technical problems. If someone only says the stairs are difficult for them, don't just change them into a slide because you accepted there needs to be change. This isn't about accomodating someone's lifestyle choices, this is (positing) dropping/adopting a standard based on vague dissent.
None, but I'm not a historian or even interested in history beyond the broad strokes. I'm not saying Mitch is gonna be as recognizable to the uninformed as "Julius Caesar" or even "Che Guvera". But I'm sure historians (who focus on America) could tell you the majority leaders during similarly fraught periods of history.
There's a difference between "historians know this guy" and "historians would have to research if he existed". McConnell will be the former.
Mitch has been the (public) headliner for the Republican for a long time. It might not be in high school textbooks but history will make a note of the Republican party he led.
Yeah, the very idea of discourse has been deconstructed so thoroughly that I can see someone saying "but humans are animals" as justification for being a monster. Or that you deserve to steal if you can find a gap in the laws preventing it.
I can see how you might have that internally, but the material imagery here is of something being stolen off a plate. It's directly at cross-purposes with what would be at the top of people's mind when interacting with the post (assuming they're not the type to sprint to comment before engaging with the post at all).
I don't suppose this is fighting against the assumption that marriage is a part of becoming a fully-fledged adult. So is the fear in this reality that you'd get force-bethrothed to an ugly woman (let's not hold a mirror on that too long)? But what about the beautiful women? Are they given last pick or something?
Or, perhaps, would the beautiful women marry someone else, and you would be the dregs for the late, unlucky woman to scrape off the bottom of the barrel?
What you described as enjoyable isn't "Skyrim" that's just the Gamebryo engine. The Companions don't figure into a physics glitch that rockets you up to kiss the twin moons. Nocturne and the Nightingales aren't relevant to a horse glued at an 85° angle to a mountain face. You're just describing mucking around in a less interactive GMod. But people did like the mage who pancaked himself with a jump spell, the woman who is absolutely a necrophiliac, and Glarthir's deranged quest. Actual components of those games that were done well. We all want them to make the game better so we actually want to experience all the bits that are well done and funny.
The Elder Scrolls isn't popular because of the shitty engine. It's memed because of the engine, but the games are generally fun enough to keep playing through the more benign bugs. And, like shared trauma, we all laugh about the bad bits in hindsight.
I fundamentally cannot agree with that take. How do you fix something if you don't know why the current thing doesn't work?
Please don't try to imprecisely apply soft inclusivity to technical problems. If someone only says the stairs are difficult for them, don't just change them into a slide because you accepted there needs to be change. This isn't about accomodating someone's lifestyle choices, this is (positing) dropping/adopting a standard based on vague dissent.