Nuance is needed here... The terms high- and low-functioning are definitely problematic, because they're too reductionist, and lead people to assume things. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that autism having "levels" is bad - the DSM-5 (as horribly flawed as it is) contains two sets of three levels each for determining level of support needed by an autistic person, with the two sets being related to socialization and life-skill functioning. Given that autism is a spectrum, and some autistic people aren't disabled by it at all, being able to categorize people by their needs is useful - we just have to make sure that it's qualitative, rather than arbitrary labels being picked by how the doctor is feeling that day. And it's something to be kept in medical records, not used for self-identification.
MantidSys
As someone who highly values spending time just thinking, it does take a level of privilege to do so. If your needs aren't met, or your life isn't safe/secure, letting the mind wander is giving it the ability to latch onto these distressing topics and create loops of anxiety and stress.
As much as I value spending my time thinking, I also value ways of shutting my brain off so that I don't have another panic attack about how I can't afford groceries yet or not knowing if my housing situation is secure. I can't feel like my life is collapsing if I distract myself.
And more people than not are struggling to make ends meet, so I imagine more people than not have stresses they need to put out of mind, just to retain their sanity.
It causes temporary and often permanent memory loss and brain fog. The goal of ECT is to, quite literally, make people detached from their illness or trauma by either forgetting it entirely or by damaging the pathways of learned stress responses, both of which are achieved through random damaging of soft tissue by routine 'treatments' until the right spots are hit, with every other damaged area being deemed acceptable losses.
It's proven effective, sure. It's more effective at causing improved mood than doing nothing. So is a heroin addiction. At least once you stop abusing heroin, you recover physically. ECT does permanent damage in most people who undergo it. Plus, ECT isn't a single course of treatments - any benefit it gives eventually wears off, and additional treatment cycles are planned in perpetuity. This is because of neuroplasticity, where the brain will recreate some of those connections that were damaged by ECT, thus bringing back trauma memories/associations and symptoms of illness.
Is it really worth it to suffer bits of permanent damage every time you undergo what is essentially medicalized repression of memory? There are people who lose memory of their partner of several years, have zero emotion towards them, leave them and continue on in their life never remembering the love they had. Is that worth it, for something that just returns anyway?
"Proven effective" and "outperforms placebo" are statements that focus on a single variable and don't mention how much damage something may cause elsewhere. Don't take it at face-value.
You can't get a lobotomy anymore, but doctors still prescribe ECT all the time. You just need to modernize your standards for physician-inflicted brain damage.
I used to think that. Then I realized I was dissociating all my memories away, and that my panic attacks were reality catching up to me. My life's fairly empty, but things definitely happen, I just don't remember them. It wasn't until I started living with someone else that I had someone to remind me of all the things I forget.
But I figure, my brain's doing it for a reason, right? Guess this is just how I deal with the stresses of life. It has its disadvantages, and I'm no stranger to hating myself for not remembering things, but any other way of getting through life would have its own downsides. Or so I tell myself.
To me, this sounds like legal ass-covering to be used as a defense should Microsoft ever be investigated for attempting a sort of gaming monopoly. "No, we're not buying out all the big developers so that we control the AAA playing field, we just don't like exclusivity!"
I mean, if they don't like exclusives, why go on to complain about how much they're losing by putting their games on the competing console? Sure sounds like they'd rather not pay those fees at all, maybe... by making their new games exclusives? Hmmm...
Barriers to entry, PC vs Consoles:
- A console will offer higher performance at similar price points
- Building a PC evens out the cost (or pushes it in the consumer's favor), but requires both knowledge and time to plan and execute a build
- Improper hardware purchasing decisions (which is likely given unfamiliarity with PC setups) can render certain games impossible to play without additional investment
- Maintaining a gaming PC involves managing OS updates, driver updates, chipset and hardware compatibility troubleshooting, navigating increased security risks (uninformed users accessing online services through their web browsers; scams, phishing, viruses)
- Non-standardized hardware configurations means manually tweaking settings of every game, which means again an investment of time and knowledge
- Lack of cross-platform support leading to separation from friends
- Lack of standardized support: going on sparse tech help forums versus contacting Microsoft or Sony's customer service
I could go on. The point is, there's a LOT that makes consoles a much more feasible option for someone who does not own a gaming-capable PC and lacks knowledge about PCs. These people are the majority of people, because people who invest time and effort into learning a topic are naturally the minority. Of course PC is the superior choice - IF and only IF you already are ingrained into the PC hobby, or are willing to invest significant time and effort into learning it. To someone who isn't into tech spheres and just wants to play games, it's console or nothing.
Now if you want to argue that gaming as a whole would be less toxic and more consumer-friendly without the patronage of console gamers, feel free, but don't insist that it's likely (or even possible) that console gamers would simply convert to being PC gamers if consoles went away. They would switch to other hobbies that require similar [minor] levels of investment. They only have so much time and effort to spare, after all.
Do you think a "soulslike" is defined by being dark and gritty? I find it odd that you think the inclusion of anything cute or hopeful/friendly would be only a negative. Maybe your preferences are for dark and gritty only, but I assure you that many people enjoy other styles. There's a charm to there being hope in a dying world, isn't there?
Besides, I'd say most people define "soulslike" by their gameplay, not aesthetics. Maybe the "git gud" fragile-masculinity crowd needs their unforgiving combat system paired with a dark, 'masculine' atmosphere to fulfill their power fantasy, but again, I assure you that many other types of people enjoy those games - especially Elden Ring, which has much broader appeal than the previous souls games.
I'll wager you're a toxic "git gud" type that hinges their identity on these types of games, and that's why the idea of your sacred icon being blemished by comparison to Soulframe upsets you so much. I really can't see why else anyone would be this angry over a game not being to their preferences. If people enjoy something different than you, let them. :)