Asklemmy

44158 readers

1283 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What discussion you know you are on the wrong side of? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 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.