Added: Nita Roquemore - Date: 17.09.2021 09:00 - Views: 11866 - Clicks: 1897
The original guide to writing for games returns!
Every chapter has been revised and expanded, and there are new chapters covering storytelling for MMOs, urban narrative, interactive script formats, and the different kinds of relationship players onlyh games have with a game's story.
Available from Bloomsbury now as a paperbackhardbackor ebook! Dear friends. After worrying about what comments would be waiting for me I have eventually returned to find I suppose that is not the worst outcome. However, at this time I have no plans to return to Twitter in the near future, and I am not resuming posting articles until I complete my dialogue with Babette Babich on vaccinations which is ongoing.
I am reachable via blog comments or all the other usual channels in the meantime. I am not saying I am never coming back to Twitter, only that at this time I am evaluating whether Twitter is a tool I can morally justify engaging onlyh games. I note that robots may post to Twitter on my behalf in the meantime, and I apologise for not being there to respond I hope everyone is well and that we might return to collaborating towards living together some day soon. This piece continues from last week's Which Deaths Matter? The principle that every cause of death matters is not, and cannot be, a scientific concept.
Indeed, the idea that any death matters cannot be a scientific claim, because from the point of view of the sciences, at least in terms of research communities striving for 'objectivity', nothing could strictly matter since it takes a being not an object for anything to matter. Assertions of a required detachment are prevalent in onlyh games contemporary sciences, but it would be implausible to assume that this detached point of view was necessary rather than merely traditional.
Indeed, as this entire philosophy of science 'campaign' has served to stress, the risk of continuing to pretend that the sciences can be pursued in a 'value-neutral' stance is that this is a blatant self-deception, and one that le directly or indirectly to the wilfully ignorant state of pseudoscience. If we were to attempt to construct a scientific value for death, rather than a scientific understanding of a specific aspect of dying, it would surely have to be that we do not increase our understanding on any topic by ignoring any of the data. Thus, to scientifically explore causes of death, we must know what the key causes of death are.
We may find it helpful to categorise these causes, and having done so we are then in a position to collect data and report upon those causes of death. This, in fact, is one of the primary functions of the World Health Organisation, and very nearly the sole purpose of providing shared diagnostic for disease which the WHO facilitates is that it permits us to build a global perspective on causes of death, so that, for instance, we can know as discussed two weeks ago that 3 million of us die globally each year from respiratory diseases.
We do not, as it happens, 'die of old age' in the eyes of conventional medical logic; rather, old age leaves us vulnerable to various causes of death of which heart failure and respiratory infection are by far the most common. We could approach this differently; it would not be unscientific to do so. But at the moment, 'disease' is the preferred framework for medical thinking, and that sets the agenda for scientific thinking about death. The landscape of death that the WHO reports upon annually would look radically different if we were to separate out these kinds of end-of-life diseases from other causes of death that affect young and old alike, and to do so would not be unscientific but merely require different values to be incorporated into the scientific communities, which is always permissible provided these assumptions are kept clearly in view.
Therefore, while 'every cause of death matters' cannot be scientific, since it is a principle based upon values that are not inherent to onlyh games practice, the sciences could incorporate this value, if that is what we wanted.Khatra Khatra Khatra - 25th June 2019 - खतरा खतरा खतरा - Full Episode
Prior toI would have thought that this actually was a value that all scientists shared, indeed, that it was a value that could be onlyh games from the Hippocratic oath for doctors. One of the most revelatory aspects of the global debacle that was the response to SARS-CoV2 was that it revealed that there are many people working in the sciences who do not believe that every cause of onlyh games matters.
I find this hard to understand in many respects, but it is also undeniable, since for instance UK scientific advisers could not have acted as they did if they did not reject the maxim that every cause of death matters, or at the very least were temporarily lured away from it.
This principle does not mean that we are wrong to care about some causes of death more than others - on the contrary, it would be reckless to replace it with a principle that 'every cause of death matters equally '. A man in New York state was killed in when an oxygen cylinder was magnetically pulled into an MRI machine, fracturing his skull.
That's tragic, but it is not in anything like the same league as the 9. But even a freak occurrence leading to a fatality such as this mattersit matters in this case because a metallic oxygen tank must be kept away from a giant electromagnet like an MRI because otherwise someone might die.Khatra Khatra Khatra - 25th June 2019 - खतरा खतरा खतरा - Full Episode
However, what 'every cause of death matters' should mean, if it is accepted, is that we cannot dismiss a cause of death from consideration without any attempt to place it into a wider context - a world and a way of life where that cause of death takes on a meaning for either certain people, or for everyone. In pushing back against this, I do not seek to impose some singular set of values on other people - this is the exact opposite of my purposes.
Rather, I am merely making a call to resist the dismissal of those causes of death we are lured, fooled, or distracted into ignoring. This shield of invisibility conceals not only economic disparities where we are the beneficiaries, but also causes of death where we are just as likely to be the victim yet cannot imagine this actually happening.
This is because exceptions are glaring as long as we can place ourselves into the comparison, onlyh games norms go unnoticed.
Hence our dismissal of cars as an important cause of death, hence our ignoring the ongoing massacre of poor, non-white people in barely-noticed countries by a nation that was once the founder and standard bearer of human rights, both of which were explored last week. Does representation matter? It certainly can. Was film, TV, and videogame representation the burning issue that needed immediate redress? It is fashionable to talk of privilege I consider myself just as guilty as everyone else in this regard, and every excuse I have feels woefully inadequate.
But it is also highly problematic because much less attention was given to drone assassinations, and almost none at all to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, both of which were directly or indirectly attributable to the actions of the US as a nation. I do not believe this change requires political reform, but it does require either journalistic reform or the creation of a new avenue for the exchange of perspective that is neither news nor entertainment.
This is unlikely to be our current academic systems, since these have also disastrously failed, although academics could be among the people to facilitate what is required. Perhaps all that is needed, as the piece on doom propheteering foreshadowed, is a different relationship between universities and news media. Or perhaps both need to be entirely reformed. Such a report would be difficult to produce because statistics on causes of death are slow to propagate, and complicated by many deaths having multiple causes - as well as being open to political gerrymandering by redefining for counting deaths.
But without some means of putting all causes of death into our consideration, we will continue to focus disproportionately upon small details, and consistently fail to see the big picture. Perhaps we are not even willing, or indeed able, to take it all in. But we could certainly try. Most likely such a report would not be enough It probably would not, for instance, help us to begin recognising automobiles as the major cause of death that in actuality they have been for more than half a century.
We would simply see those deaths on the 'leaderboard' and continue to dismiss them as we always have. Neither would it be likely to illuminate how COVID deaths compare to deaths from other respiratory diseases, and thus how stories that foreground these tragic deaths for dramatic, doom propheteering effect ignore comparable deaths from other, similar causes of death that we have traditionally chosen to entirely ignore despite causing a roughly similar of deaths.
According to a recent government report72, people in England died of "laboratory-confirmed COVID" in ; an alternative source reports 73, for England and Wales for This has been reported as a catastrophe. Yet the 71, English and Welsh deaths from respiratory diseases in raised zero headlines, caused no panic, no dramatic posturing by cowardly politicians about the "millions grieving", nor any attempt to seize unwarranted emergency powers to undermine liberty and criminalise protest. It is true that there are millions grieving And it is becoming painfully clear that these extreme measures had limited effect on SARS-CoV2 mortality, which still killed roughly 0.
This is not the same as saying we should have done nothing, but this should never have been permitted to become the nature of the dispute - 'do everything' versus 'do nothing' is about as far from sane thinking as could be imagined, and yet we not only made this the battlefield, we committed to it so fully that we became convinced that the specific insanity we chose was clearly the only reasonable choice.
But neither of those choices was reasonable, because the important question was which actions could save lives when we consider all causes of deathand this discussion we have in fact refused to have, and continue to lie to ourselves about the ghastly things we have done as a consequence.
It is admirable that so many wanted to commit to the maxim 'we should do whatever it takes to save lives' - I truly wish we had been willing to engage with the scientific and political challenges in a way that made this laudable goal even remotely plausible to safely pursue. Instead, we politicised COVID and dangerously nullified not only civil liberties, but the very ability of the sciences to investigate. Without these safety measures we were empowered to unleash rash cybernetic interventions that went on to destroy a great many lives and livelihoods, casualties not of a disease but of our collective madness in the face of a disease.
Not to mention that for the onlyh games time in human history, our loved ones died without having a chance for us to say goodbye to themmaking each and every one of those dreadful deaths far more anguished, desolate, and lonely onlyh games they needed to be. The disease was indeed onlyh games, but the catastrophe was not the disease but our response to it, a tragedy that happened because we were fooled into thinking that only one cause of death mattered. Over the last year, dreadful things were happening. Never one to turn a blind eye on anything, I committed to using my skills and experience to study the literature and ongoing research on the interventions being proposed or deployed in order to be able to provide advice and insight that I hoped might be helpful.
But, as they say, "a prophet is never welcome in their home town", and during this time I have been pilloried, snidely dismissed, treated as "one of them", told that "you're wrong because I have a friend who's a scientist", told "that may be what some scientists say, but its not what the science says", and other things equally bizarre and nonsensical, all by well-educated, compassionate people who have been acting as if they were neither of these things.
In short, despite the care I have taken in my scientific analysis, despite my judgements being informed by onlyh games medical debates I have followed closely, despite my claims aligning with those made by eminent epidemiologists, I and indeed they have been told that this well-informed, scientifically-grounded perspective doesn't count because it doesn't align with the beliefs of those who zealously committed to "saving lives". You cannot claim I don't care about saving lives; I have spent seven years trying to save the lives of those who die because of our current automobile des, and the lives of those killed as 'collateral damage' in drone attacks.
During this time I have been almost unilaterally dismissed via dozens of excuses onlyh games I onlyh games accepted, albeit with great sadness, because I accept everyone's freedom of speech and belief, and place this value above all others as the necessary foundation of all other freedoms.
I grieve for everyone who has died, but I weep hardest for this politically-fuelled breakdown in discourse, for it has plunged us into a state of pseudoscience that has not only resulted in unnecessary deaths, it has savaged civil society and removed any ambiguity over whether we are still committed to human rights.
It is precisely because I am committed to saving lives that I must speak out about the harms caused by the interventions chosen I could be mistaken in my claims, errors are a perpetual risk in all scientific work. But there is no such risk for those who are defending a position based on political commitments.
Political battlefields destroy the work of the sciences because they polarise discussions in ways that preclude onlyh games evaluation and re-evaluation of evidence that is required for the slow and careful work of legitimate scientific enquiry. Once there are two vehemently opposed sides, evidence can either be converted into ammunition or dismissed out of hand.
Yet whatever rubbish your "opponents" have said will not make your position magically correct, it simply feels that way because onlyh games have made it about "fighting an enemy" instead of uncovering the truth, as happens with every politicised issue. Complex issues are always rendered poorly when presented solely in polar extremes.
So it has been with the onlyh games that "public health trumps human rights" - an incoherent maxim that entails there are no human rights, since the very purpose of declaring such rights was that they were supposed to be inalienableas the US constitution memorably puts the matter. And while we are living in a state of pseudoscience there is no legitimate public health eitherjust a string of dreadful mistakes divorced from all responsibility for their horrific consequences.
Stop treating SARS-CoV2 as a more ificant cause of death than the inadvertently fatal measures rashly deployed against it. Stop pretending guns are a bigger problem than cars, when the latter in six times as many preventable deaths. In short, just stop pretending that only some causes of death matter. Even dying peacefully in old age matters because this, after all, is how many of us would prefer that we eventually die. Whatever your values, whatever your commitments, if you care about anything, you ought to care about how we die.
We can die with dignity and respect, or we can die horrifically and unjustly. The more we recognise that every death matters, the closer we will creep to a world worth saving. The opening image appears to be a detail from a Dominic Pangborn painting, but I have been unable to source the title.
As ever, no copyright infringement is intended and I will take the image down if asked. My Spring social media break begins tomorrow, so please accept my apologies in advance for the slowness of my replies. Only a Game returns later this year. Contains both death statistics and ideas that some people may find distressing.
Please onlyh games not read it if you are of a sensitive disposition. Which deaths matter? This is an odd question, because most of us have a sense that every death matters, at least to someone. But we do not act in ways that are consistent with the idea that we consider every death important. On the contrary, we are entirely accustomed to ignoring deaths - including a great many that we are partially responsible for. To explore this strange situation, I want to draw against the ethical thought of the Enlightenment philosopher Immanual Kant.
One of the most surprising aspects of his work in moral philosophy is the role he provides for maximsthat is, principles for acting or refraining from acting. If, for example, we say we are acting on a precautionary principle - to take steps that might save lives - we may want to know more about when and how such a principle is to be applied, or if it is always to be applied, we want to know why it appears to be otherwise.
Similarly, if we say that onlyh games act whenever human rights are violated, we may want to know whether this is for certain rights, or certain violations, and whether we mean in our country or by our government which is not the same thing.
Now making precisely worded principles is not how we do our moral thinking - Kant knew onlyh games, but in his time, the concept of a maxim was a convenient shorthand for moral thought that his contemporaries readily understood, and he used this situation to help get across to his 18th century readership far more complex ethical ideas that helped transition us into thinking in terms of our shared rights.
I believe it can still be useful to think about our principles of action in this way. In the two thought experiments that follow, the idea is for you to attempt to formulate an approximation of the principles that underlie situations where I shall suggest that we are unreasonably focusing on some causes of deaths and not others. Unfortunately, the easiest way to get where we are going is to form crude pairs of death-causes - but to help defend against the risk of misunderstandings, I will in each case add at least one additional unexplored cause of death to show there are many others we could also have considered in each case.Onlyh games
email: [email protected] - phone:(738) 410-3158 x 7198