this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
73 points (92.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44152 readers
2068 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€“] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Actually people had much less of a beef with homosexuality before the 50's and the pink scare. Lord Byron was like, an open bisexual. Victorians has nipple rings as a fad.

Also abolitionists and suffragettes and the like weren't exactly wildly popular.

Your hypothetical scenario is not only uninformed, but also a false equivalence. We don't live in those time periods, we can focus on more than one thing at a time, and you're also fixing blame on the movement to make things better rather than on the people who are actively making things worse. You should be blaming the rich for making global warming worse, not the people who are fighting against it and losing because they are daring to say trans people shouldn't be a problem.

[โ€“] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, Byron had to flee England for fear of lynching and Oscar Wilde spent two years in prison for homosexuality.

And the abolitionists weren't wildly popular but they were popular enough to win a broad base of support in the North.

And I'm sure folks a couple hundred years ago could multi task.

How is it a false equivalence though? The basic notion is that there are things you can be morally right on that may cause more actual harm.

Meanwhile, I only ever started this to answer someone's question. As I've said repeatedly, I don't think it's an effective tactic as you'd split the progressive vote.

That being said, culture war shit and immigration is what the Right is running and winning on.

If you want to reign in the rich and corporations on climate change, it ain't going to come from the Right. So, we need to win elections.

[โ€“] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's false equivalence because, again, these are two separate scenarios.

The first is your hypothetical assumption based off of a completely different culture and time period, and the second is, you know, the here and now in the present day. Factual reality.

Arrogantly going "well I think this would've gone badly if they did something completely different totally equates to what's happening now" is a pretty ballsy form of false equivalence. You can't even come up with a real scenario to compare the present situation with.

[โ€“] Lauchs@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Are you misunderstanding how a hypothetical sistuation works? Or how analogies work?

The basic idea is that it is difficult to picture an important movement, like the abolition movement, succeeding if they had expanded their mandate to include all groups, even if it would have been the right thing to do.

Similarly, while the Left has the moral highground, not all of society is with the Left yet. And so, we're being painted as wacky folks trying to do some crazy shit and we keep losing elections.

Why do you think almost every Far Right leader rallies against Woke? From Bolsanaro, Orban, La Pen, Meloni to trump, it's been a winning issue with a majority of voters. I'm old enough to understand that elections have serious consequences and that winning them matters. If a common thread that seems to win majority support across the world keeps coming up, heck, maybe it's time to look at it.

[โ€“] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think you really don't know what a false equivalence is.

So yeah, could tell you about how the exit polls said most people voted based on the economy and it wasn't because Democrats hint at helping trans people or how the right demonizes them.

Or that your strategy of trying to become diet conservative doesn't work, especially since the Democrats have and are basically doing that.

Or that the same goal could be achieved by getting more election and voting change, like ending gerrymandering and putting in ranked choice voting.

Or maybe I'd meet you halfway and say if the Democrats decided to rebrand stuff as "helping all Americans" rather than outright saying that it's for trans people, they might get some of working class rural Americans on their side. Maybe.

But since you don't figure out what a false equivalence is, I'm not sure you'd really get it, ya know?

And since you're willing to throw my friends' lives away rather than look at other options, I'm not really keen on talking to you much.