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
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

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

      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.