Kind of concerning though cause George Galloway is legitimately a transphobe, and his pitch when his new workers party launched was as far as i recall, verbatim, "a workers party not a wokers party", and they've kept publishing anti-trans shit since then, though as the Ukraine war and the genocide in Gaza began they've focused more on that instead for obvious reasons.
What would they focus on next when they can't take popular foreign policy positions.
Seems like the US state have discovered those "Experts react" videos now, cause all of a sudden it feels like 50% of the new ones are some variation of "(US genocidal war) veteran reacts to movies!"
It used to be somewhat niche shit like a sub commander or whatever that you could marginally justify as having something interesting to contribute but now its literally just random military freaks getting put up there.
It should be illegal to name your dogshit fraud brand after random words in the dictionary but no, this shit is what they go after.
Can't have a guy register his website as McDonkalds, end of the world.
That new shogun series looks like dogshit, like just aesthetically it looks completely unappealing to me.
Idk if its just a boomer opinion but historical series should look relatively normal, leave this fantasy shit to fantasy and get some mundaneity over here. Exceptional places, events and people do not stand out if everyone looks as heightened and stylized and if every location looks overdramatic.
I feel like there's this kind of true crime mindset that has infested a lot of popular sort of leftist history, specifically thinking of the JFK assassination and MKULTRA.
Where there is just so much sensationalization and vague conspiracy language involved that you really just cannot learn anything of use from delving into most popular writings of these topics, its like how you can't really learn much of value in regards to either crime or law enforcement through most popular true crime stories, you just learn a ton of hyperspecific trivia and technical language that doesnt really contain any information beyond the scare factor of it.
It's to the point where I almost think you are better off just either literally accepting the official accounts of either of these topics, or just internalizing single sentence summaries like "well yeah the CIA killed JFK obviously." Beyond that you kind of turn into one of those true crime assholes who get smug at you if you don't think Jonbenet Ramseys mother wrote the ransom letter(intended effect of this sentence is to be gibberish.)
I'm not even that sure that the actual clear headed and reliable knowledge I have gained on these topics from reading about them is very useful either, the most valuable parts seem to be just in terms of general mindset and approach when it comes to looking at government conspiracies and potential operations, rather than being able to detect who and when the CIA has dosed someone with LSD. It ends up feeling the same way as just regular true crime feels to me.
Even if this was real, which it wasn't, mentioning a fancy and expensive sandwich is probably not gonna be a problem just as long as you talk about what you love about the sandwich rather than how expensive it is.
It's journalism anyways, people are gonna be used to having to hang out with rich assholes.
Also took a look at the article itself and he thinks doing right wing whataboutism and "this superficially sounds like this other thing" type shit was brave internal truthtelling at NYT.
Seems very plausible but at the same time the article isn't particularly good, I feel.
It's very general and doesn't really provide sources and citations for things like what the specific effects of certain drugs were, subprojects are named but the scope and focus not defined at all.
Particularly I feel like the connection between a treatment of anti-depressants and ECT to the process of "depatterning" is very loose, since depatterning involved full on sedation or induced paralysis while being subjected to looped tape messages, if that is what Paul Robeson was subjected to thats one thing, but intentionally excessive ECT treatment would be a separate treatment and method.
Basically my issue is I don't feel like this article is actually much more useful or informative to the reader than just reading basically the sentence "Paul Robeson was a victim of the CIA" on it's own, I don't think the references to specific MKULTRA terms are of much worth due to just kind of being strewn about conspiratorially.
Like searching for Subproject 111 seems to bring up descriptions of studying how people perform at simple tasks depending on various regular motivators, in isolation relatively mundane but something that would interest the CIA in connection to every other point in the MKULTRA spiderweb, but it doesnt help much to reference it in the article.
Neither does it feel very useful to reference doctors as having links to MKULTRA based on having been connected to hospitals that had projects going on there, because that eventually just becomes a huge % of psychiatrists and doctors in America at that time in general, due to the nature of MKULTRA as contracting out and funding experiments rather than having one special CIA guy for each project.
Also just a side note but they reference an "MKULTRA historian", "Mike Minnicino" without citing what he actually has written on the subject, and I cant seem to find anyone who fits that name and description except a now deceased actual Larouchite who seems to have been the one who coined the term "Cultural Marxism" before denouncing that work after Anders Breiviks terror attacks in Norway.
A lot of gamers just generally do not think critically about video games but just take a point of view where the general gaming audiences conservative opinions and tastes are a natural truth in regards to how video games should be looked at and judged.
I disagree, the horror in a horror game is a function of every system together, and depriving the player of intuitive controls and information through inconvenient camera or inefficient controls is not just valid but extremely effective.
Giving the player perfect controls and agency over their information can very easily lead to them outpacing the horror of the game simply by being able to perfectly handle the enemies, who no matter how freaky they look or scary they sound, will be less scary if they objectively are less of a threat.
Theres also the point of immersion into an actual role, if you have controls that let you do just about anything, your character kind of has to be able to also do just about anything in the world or just stop being a particularly coherent character, this kind of thing was commented on all the way back in Half Life with Gordon Freeman, academia dork, being able to inexplicably outfight anyone and anything thrown at him.
Silent Hill 2 remake is gonna have James Sunderland in the cutscenes and then in gameplay he's gonna turn into Jim "Silent" Hill, action man.
First person controls don't particularly make more sense on a person, nor does third person over the shoulder, they are all abstractions in service of particular ideas for gameplay and storytelling.
Tank controls and fixed camera have roles and functions that are different from FPS or shoulder camera controls.
This latest Roderic Day twitter beef must be his most pathetic yet, he seems like he can't decide whether a disagreement is meant to be 15 rounds in Manilla or a friendly discussion over coffee, so he ends up repeatedly accusing someone of lying, distorting the truth, misleading etc, but then switching into birthday boy mode and calling for civility when accused of not reading the other person's points properly.
I mean I like his work in general but sometimes when he has a disagreement with someone basically on the same page as him, it's like pulling teeth having to read through the resulting days long dispute.