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
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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
      1
      ·
      5 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
        1
        ·
        5 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.

        • OneMeaningManyNames@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          I adore that your sources were: Yourself

          It is a whole thread, not just my analysis. I also put thought into it, so I won’t recite every point I carefully phrase there to a rando centrist, so live with it.

          a comic strip and a paraphrasing of a (solid) late night comedian

          Directly responding to your very argument though, are you going to engage with these responses or what?

          I did watch Stewart’s take

          Stewart took on an Alabama MAGA moron legislator on trans youth heatlhcare bans. We are probably not talking about the same segment. The part you are talking about is probably the one I am criticizing in the thread you refused to read because it was written by me, so why should we bother with your tired argument? This borders on sea-lioning since a couple iterations ago, and I think if this is the case it is actionable.

          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.”

          But you talked about pitching to the progressive base, not the opposite side. MAGA fanatics are cult-minded morons that dismiss everything that diverts from their narrative. There is no comparison to centrist and center-left democrats base, who operate under totally different rules than a fucking Nazi cult.

          Your example about the Ad is addressed to a cult.

          You said:

          no way to rebut it without alienating our progressive wing, so we just take the L on this

          Just searching around Lemmy you can find fine rebuttals to this bullshit. You make it sound like it is unthinkable to rebut these hateful tropes. This is more or less what Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro tout: That their common sense is unrebuttable. It is not.

          to ZERO pushback from Harris

          She could have rebutted, and take them on. Same goes for Rachel Levin. They chickened out of it. Furthermore, the mainstream progressive media not only omitted to address misconceptions and dangerous cliches, but they chimed in with thinly veiled TERFism, and this is because the interests behind the Democrats are in part transphobic as well.

          This also responds to these words of yours:

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

          I keep saying they abstained from matching the excessive anti-trans propaganda. What is your point?

          I said that Oliver and Stewart, the Scientific American, the APA, and several other bodies have addressed trans issues to the progressive base, and no-one in the left thought they were unpalatable until now. The progressive media would have protected against this, that is more than a decade in the happening, but they did not.

          Given that it’s an issue that some 70% of America disagrees with us on

          Shit man, this is such a complex study that I can easily point out that 60% of Democrats think that trans representation has not even gone far enough.

          Above all, I don’t think that trans issues are edgy and unpopular at all. Until a couple years ago it was a strictly medical thing, with a very niche activism surrounding it, mostly on legal representation and medical gatekeeping issues.

          It was the fascists who spent millions to demagogue on that point for many years, and I think people should be educated on trans issues as they should a decade ago.

          At this point people who take anti-trans propaganda seriously are lost causes to me, and this includes people who fall for an ad like the one you posted. There is no point to cater to them from a pro-trans perspective, it is like trying to appeal to a 1936 German crowd applauding Hitler about the human rights of Jews at this point.

          The view you defend here is essentially a compromise to concurrent Nazi discourse, which as I said is unacceptable, and I don’t care about Democrats ratings. I rather see that the extreme left everywhere dials up the pro-trans issues and organize defense and survival programs.

          such an easy bone to throw moderates with almost no real world costs (apologies to the handful of high level trans athletes

          Again I have cited arguments against the supposedly self-evident low hanging fruit you evangelize here.

          I think that I have responded to all your concerns here or elsewhere in my Lemmy posts and comments, and I won’t respond further. You probably come from a naive self-designated center-left perspective, but the discourse of this post borders too closely to sealioning and concern trolling, that I will not waste more of my time on.

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Edit: Holy shit, was curious about why Alred was getting singled out. Because he said he didn’t support trans women playing sports with the other women? If that’s the most anti trans Democrat candidate ever and your next move is “What else could she do, outlaw trans people?!?” you need to give your head a shake. No wonder we lose to a man who has more orange makeup than brains.

            are you going to engage with these responses or what?

            I mean, your comic made the same basic point that Oliver did. Which I already responded to. In depth.

            Above all, I don’t think that trans issues are edgy and unpopular at all. Until a couple years ago it was a strictly medical thing

            You could, uhhh, look back at the Pew research I already shared.

            At this point people who take anti-trans propaganda seriously are lost causes to me

            I love your argument is simultaneously “we can win them over with enough messaging! The DNC didn’t put enough into trans messaging to overcome propaganda! Also, those people we can win over are lost causes!” Pick a lane!

            and I don’t care about Democrats ratings. I rather see that the extreme left everywhere dials up the pro-trans issues and organize defense and survival programs.

            I guess that’s the difference. I’ve met some of the people who will be affected by climate change and seen the communities that will be destroyed. They aren’t abstract. It’s very easy to figure winning these elections doesn’t matter when you know damn well it really doesn’t affect you. I just find that view reprehensible as I think it’s throwing the most vulnerable people under the bus so you can feel good about being on the right side.

            Life in large, pluralistic society is full of uncomfortable compromises. Most moral progress is made because enough people with old Conservative views have died and the median voter is ready to move forward, not because we screamed at people. (Though, frustratingly, the Left seems to have either lost the messaging game or taken such silly positions that we are no longer dominating the youth vote so we may have, through our evangelizing, set progress back much farther than needs be. How fucking annoying are we such that people would prefer trump to us?)

            borders too closely to sealioning and concern trolling

            Are you sure you know what those terms mean? This seems like when you had no idea what Utilitarianism was.

            Sea lioning doesn’t just refer to disagreeing with someone, here’s the original sea lion comic:

            https://wondermark.com/c/1062/

            I’m hard pressed to see how, relatively politely, responding to the comments you keep leaving on my original response to someone else’s question fits that at all.

            As I hope you’re true to your word and done with this, have a good weekend.