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…

  • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours 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.