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…

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    And if the public doesn’t go along, we just keep killing the planet and billions of the poorest and most vulnerable folks so we can feel good about ourselves?

    That seems pretty damned privileged to me.

    And yes, it’s a silly hypothetical to illustrate a point, that’s what hypotheticals are. It’s not like we tie people to train tracks and see what trolley drivers do.

    Just seems wild to me that you assume everyone is down with what we believe to be right. It’s easy to say you are dragging society forward when the consequences of not winning elections are fairly mild for you while the people at risk live elsewhere and are desperately poor.

    And yet again, I don’t actually believe there’s a way for the Left to pitch trans issues in a way that A) wins broad support and B) doesn’t alienate our progressive base, so it’s kind of a moot point. (Even throwing it back to states, which mostly works for Dems as we have the biggest states etc and there’s still freedom of movement probably wouldn’t be enough.)

    • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      I don’t actually believe there’s a way for the Left to pitch trans issues

      Then fuck the Left, I guess?

      doesn’t alienate our progressive base

      Then fuck “our” “progressive” base?

      If the “Left” had spent a fraction of the resources to match the vile torrent of anti-trans propaganda, the situation would be different, with regard to both of your points about pitching trans issues to the progressive base.

      Like, John Oliver and Jon Stewart showed exactly how a mainstream progressive media can combat anti-trans demagoguery by Republicans, not to mention Scientific American, the American Psychological Association, and other bodies. You probably weren’t listening because if you don’t think this is a way to “pitch” then you might have been listening to other sources that make the matter unpalatable, like “biological males in female sports” and what have you.

      So I take it as a given that you were listening to the wrong sources about it, and you are at least partially anti-trans yourself. On the other hand, you might not be listening to all the analyses after the fact that point to other issues as to why Democrats lost the election. See for example this thread, this comic strip, and this thread also.

      In a nutshell, Harris did already try to appeal to the transphobes and she failed. So this should be end of discussion. I am not discussing compromise of the human rights of any group in order to appease to either moderate or extreme bigots.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        I adore that your sources were: Yourself, a comic strip and a paraphrasing of a (solid) late night comedian.

        Because I don’t watch many late night comedians I’m absorbing the wrong sources? Jesus fuck.

        Admittedly, I did watch Stewart’s take and it was pretty silly. The essence was that because Harris said things, the Right should’ve listened. Which is as dumb as people on the Right saying that “trump said he respects and loves women so I don’t get how the libs think he’s anti woman.”

        Oliver’s point is similar, Harris was quiet on trans stuff. Which okay but being quiet on an issue just means the other side gets to paint you howver they want on it. Which is EXACTLY what the trump campaign did by running this vile, but effective ad (which I believe was their most frequently run ad in the last few weeks of the campaign) to ZERO pushback from Harris (again, no way to rebut it without alienating our progressive wing, so we just take the L on this.) You might also read this PBS article where a journalist points out that, of the money they tracked, the trump campaign spent more on anti trans ads than on housing, immigration and the economy combined.

        To say that trans issues weren’t a thing this election because your side didn’t talk about then is absurd.

        And frankly, you are compromising the human rights of a group, it’s the poor billions who will suffer the effects of climate change. I get that neither you, nor anyone you know will be affected. And that the suffering of those who live elsewhere isn’t really a trendy cause so easily forgettable but personally, I think they should be included in our moral calculus.

        then you might have been listening to other sources that make the matter unpalatable, like “biological males in female sports” and what have you.

        I mean, before this thread I hadn’t thought about it much but damn, the sport thing would be such an easy bone to throw moderates with almost no real world costs (apologies to the handful of high level trans athletes.) Given that it’s an issue that some 70% of America disagrees with us on it does seem like an easy way to demonstrate we aren’t the crazy party.