• 0 Posts
  • 105 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle


  • I was defending someone who had their comment removed from Palestine@lemmy.ml for saying the governments of both Palestine and Israel had failed their people. Someone replied with

    Leave it to a .world liberal piece of shit to rules lawyer in defense of a fascist collaborator

    and later

    Not in a community for the oppressed people, you fuckwit. Just from your comment I can tell you’re a white liberal male who has never had to deal with any sort of discrimination or oppression. Get the fuck out of here with that centrist “both sides” bullshit. You disgust me.

    I wasn’t even being provocative or anything, so the personal attacks seemed out of nowhere. The only “rules lawyering” I did was saying criticizing a country’s leadership isn’t racism. And the so-called “fascist collaborator” spent more time criticizing the Israeli government than Palestine’s.








  • It’s not racist. People accuse others of that term too flippantly. It is ignorant though.

    Language changes a great deal over time, and slurs are no exception. What is a completely inoffensive label at some point can be a slur later on. What is a mild insult in one area can be much more severe somewhere else. Sometimes what was a slur can be reclaimed and become acceptable, even positive. But that can also depend on who is saying it and other contextual details. I don’t know anything about “k!wifarms” but I wouldn’t assume malicious intent without more information.

    That example looks much like the No True Scotsman fallacy, since a word is redefined later to exclude what would be exceptions to their claim based on an added qualification. Person A also made Person B get the evidence to refute their claim rather than fulfilling the burden of proof themselves. I know it’s not a formal debate or anything, but even so, bad faith arguments are just rude. Just own the mistake and say “you’re right, I was only thinking of first world countries/liberal democracies/developed nations/whatever”.



  • Well that’s kind of the point. It’s low hanging fruit because everyone agrees with it. No one thinks you are obligated to argue with others, which is the straw man’s position. It’s not that you don’t have a right to block critics, the question is “When is it a good idea?”.

    It sounds like a lot of people think the author does it too liberally, which can lead to an echo chamber. Most people would say creating a lawsuit against your critics is also an overreaction, but people have also been saying she gets harassed a lot. That makes it more reasonable if true.





  • TLoZ: Spirit Tracks had you control Link primarily but you used Zelda’s ghost to possess things, help you fight, and solve puzzles. It would be hard for a solo dev, but you could have a knight with an AI that proceeded based on what paths you unlock for it. So the princess would be some sort of astral projection I guess. But then, you wouldn’t really feel trapped. Maybe you need to hide your activity from the dragon or distract it for a stealth aspect or resource management. You would need to balance swapping back and forth between your body and helping the knight. Might be easier to settle on an in-universe justification after figuring out the core gameplay.




  • The problem is that then you need the government’s permission to procreate. There’s always the valid concern that the government would prevent you from having children to remove some undesirable trait from the population and justify it as being a danger to a child. I know you described basic competency skills, but there would always exist a very credible threat of it being politicized.

    In fact, this already happens for things like queer couples being rejected for adopting children or the Uyghur population being quietly genocided in China. And Eugenics was historically practiced such that criminals would be sterilized as part of their punishment.

    It’s worth pointing out that governments already intervene with unqualified parents by removing the child from the household. Shifting the burden of proof from the government needing to show neglect to parents needing to prove themselves worthy is a dangerous amount of authority to cede to a centralized, corruptible power.

    Also, it’s not clear how you handle unlicensed parents. People are going to have unsafe sex no matter how illegal you make it. Would you push for preemptively sterilizing everyone and trusting it can be reversed after a license is acquired? Forcing abortions? Confiscating the child after birth?