@Alexanderjac That's a good point. I think maybe he just mainstreamed the concept?

At least not in its current format.

Maybe. I think it's just one of the tid-bits of knowledge that is nice to know but not crucial. You can still love games and stuff without knowing the expansive history. I think as older people we typically have a lot of respect for the things we remember or experienced. It's not bad the younger generation doesn't know about it or care.

They'll be in our shoes eventually too.

Sure.

Like, the local medics that work at a station near me aren't taught EVOC anymore. They're taught EVD. By the same token, CPR no longer requires breaths like I was taught. It is purely compression. Things change over time.

i mean if i had to pick a "father of videogames" itd have to be the guys at atari that made pong and the first real big consoles

That said, if I say "Eli Whitney' there has to be a significance.

Atari wouldn't have existed without R. H. Baer. He's the Eli Whitney of video games.

Much like the cotton gin changed farming.

On a segway to another topic....it is a strong belief of mine that the US Civil War would have happened regardless of slavery....but that if the cotton gin had been invented 20 years sooner that war would have happened much later.

One of the reasons I hold this belief is: Expansionism. Every time a state was added to the overall union the North and South would be at odds over power. No different than Democrats and Republicans in our bipartisan system today.

I also believe it would have happen regardless of slavery, mainly because of the ideological/power difference between the Northern and Southern states

In the history of the world, nearly every country has had a war with itself; nearly every government a war with its people.

Right.

How this would have played out in an alternative time line I'm not sure. Sure most civilizations have a civil war of sorts but why it happens and how it plays out depends on many factors.

I'm not an expert on that portion of American history so I'm open to ideas and theories.

The Civil war is always a hot button issue in American politics. Everyone has emotions and opinions tied up in it.

Yeah. That's what led to Charlottesville.

Just, as an example.

I just don't understand why the American public is so rabid about that issue.

In part, a lack of education.

Our public school systems are garbage and people are taught what to think instead of how. So instead of analyzing the situation they pull emotion to the forefront.

A great example of this, on that vein, is the flag that people claim is southern pride. That flag they use is the Virginia battle flag. Not one of the four official flags of the C.S.A.

well the flag's meaning has definitely changed since its first use. it represents something completely different to most people

So, what you have is a bunch of uneducated people claiming it's heritage....which it isn't unless you're from Virginia or directly related to one of the soldiers who were under that specific flag.....and you have another side of uneducated people who think it's a slavery flag.

most of the conflict going on these days is just a misunderstanding. people can take a symbol and change its meaning into something else

Right.

I mean, for the sake of argument, it means either of those things. I just always come back to so what?

i think the n word is great example. used to explicitly mean a derogatory term, but if youre black and use the word, it has a totally different meaning

It can mean whatever. It's not worth beating people to death in the streets.

...and therein lies the point.

And is the "n-word" banned here? Are we not allowed to say it?

I've never understood why people are so ready to freak out about a word.

Even if someone uses it as insult against you. It's still just a word.

When your beliefs lead to attacking other people who are non-violent, which in turn creates violence and then becomes cyclic (I don't care who started it, but someone did), it is a problem.

well yeah one side thinks theyre just protecting their history and heritage, and the other side is just some braindead sjw retards, while the other side sees themselves as crushing the intolerant, racist rightwing assholes and that theyre making the world a better place. it really feels like the two groups are arguing past each other a lot of the time, and theyve both just built giant strawmans of each other

some people think violence is justified though

because they think the people theyre attacking are hurting other people too

also idk can i say the n word here?

Violence is only justified against those who are actively violent.