this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
44 points (90.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43979 readers
628 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Maybe you haven't been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don't want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?

In my case: I don't think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don't have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren't actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can't really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn't actually be playing the same game after all...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Lauchs@lemmy.world -2 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I think the logic is essentially right wingers keep winning elections. Their supporters tend to argue first and foremost it's a win against "woke" while the money/interests behind it tend to be "let's burn this planet down and get ALL the oil." If the Left conceded on say trans issues or whatever, maybe we'd win, whixh would undoubtedly benefit the billions who may die because of climate change issues.

(Unsure if this would work or if it'd just split the left etc myself but I think that's the logic.)

An analogy a friend made while making this argument was that the Civil War was essential for Black emancipation etc and we can all agree it was a good thing. BUT, especially in those days, if abolitionists had also demanded trans recognition or whatever, maybe fewer states would've joined the Union or maybe the movement would've never gotten off the ground and there's a possible future wherein Black people might still be slaves because, even with the best intentions, we didn't pick our battles.

It's a utilitarian answer to a Sophie's choice.

Wow, this should be downvoted more.

conceded on say trans issues or whatever

What if we conceded on your rights or whatever?

Plus the idea that trans rights lost Democrats the election is ridiculous. There were zero trans speakers in the DNC, and Harris did cater to transphobes by saying she will go with state laws.

So the question remains, who else are you willing to throw under the bus because you think that their rights are too edgy?

Go-slowism leads to do-nothingism - Malcolm X

Utilitarian is not what you think it is. Your comment just shows a complete lack of empathy for people living in the same social space as you.

I think people who think that the rights of any group's rights is "too much" to appease and appeal to a society of oppressors are complicit to the oppression.

[โ€“] m532@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 13 hours ago

Tailism never works