OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml

If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a l

---

Read more

Posts

29

Comments

3,246

Joined

1 yr. ago

Classic XCOM is really fun imo, but it does suffer from some quality of life issues. It's possible to fix some of that with mods though and imo it still holds up. I've definitely put more time into the reboot of the series, but the original has a grittier feel, a bit more "open world," where you're gonna miss UFOs and you're gonna have to cut and run sometimes, and there's also a lot of exploits and tricks you have to figure out on your own (intended or otherwise).

Xenonauts is a more direct remake and it's good, more balanced and polished, but when I play it sometimes I just say, "I'd rather be playing old school XCOM." Hard to put my finger on it, and it might just be that I already know the tricks for the original, or that the jankyness makes it fun. Xenonauts does hold up on it's own but it's hard not to compare the two.

Generally games have gotten better but I'd say there's a handful that have withstood the test of time (especially with basic UI improvements).

No "only" but primarily. Domestic billionaires are the primary enemy, they're the ones who directly benefit from making things like rent and healthcare more expensive, they're the ones who benefit from keeping unions weak and disorganized, they're the ones who benefit from mass surveillance and the police state. Foreign billionaires might benefit from doing those things in their own countries, but for the most part we have more to fear from our own rich people than from other countries' rich people.

Whataboutism.

It's always foreigners, isn't it? What about the domestic private money flooding US politics? What, because they're American billionaires, it's fine?

The problem I've always had with the term is that you can't really define a term by pointing to a comic and going like, "It's like when someone does this sort of thing." Like there's a bunch of things the sea lion is doing, one is:

pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence

Like if you get a grudge against a user and constantly hound them in every thread about a topic they don't want to discuss, that's pretty rude (and if you do this offline like in the comic, it's straight-up harassment). That's bad regardless of what form it takes. On the other hand, if it's just a regular conversation and not following from thread to thread, you have every right to expect people to provide evidence for their claims. Another is:

maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter

"Feigning ignorance of the subject matter," is also part of the Socratic Method, isn't it? I don't think it's inherently bad to be like, "What specifically does this term mean, and why do you think this specific case meets the criteria?" If you believe something, you ought to be able to state things in clear terms, and that's an important part of a healthy debate, it helps the other side to identify the point of disagreement where they break with your line of reasoning. Otherwise, how do you even go about having a productive conversation with someone you disagree with at all?

In my opinion, these sorts of internet neologisms are dangerous even if they are addressing a legitimate thing, because once it's out there, you can't control who's going to use it. For example, "mansplaining" was intended to refer to a specific type of thing where a man assumes he's an expert on a subject and explains in a paternalistic way, while often being ignorant of the subject matter, like random guys on Twitter trying to lecture a female astronaut about how space works. But there are also people who use it/interpret it to mean, "Whenever a man explains something" - even if he is actually qualified to speak on the subject, which provokes a backlash (and obviously the problem is made worse by people trying to exacerbate the backlash, including through sockpuppets).

The ambiguity of the term "sealioning" allows it to be used to shut down good faith questions and discussion, while leaving the accused without a lot of options to defend themself. "What do you mean by 'sealioning?' What specifically did I do or say that meets that definition, and why should that be grounds to dismiss what I'm saying, or to conclude I'm acting in bad faith?" is generally going to be met with, "That's more sealioning." If critically examining the concept of sealioining is sealioning, then I'm just inclined to dismiss the term entirely.

Would it be immoral to drive a car without utility? Maybe so, but only a little immoral, surely. You don't deserve to go to jail for taking a joyride around the block.

I can think of reasons to write a name in a Death Note, like trying to prove to someone that it doesn't work.

Trumps not wrong for once.

He's definitely wrong morally, constitutionally, and strategically just not legally, per how the courts have (mis)interpreted the constitution.

Sanctions haven’t been working

Well, in order to work, they'd have to have a coherent objective.

They did work at bringing Iran to the negotiating table, which led to Obama's Iran deal. The only problem being that Obama made it, so Trump had to hate it. The only thing the US actually wants from Iran is for it to be an enemy the president can bomb to look tough.

it should be effective at stopping their program.

The program that we have no evidence actually existed, that is. Certainly, if they weren't actively persuing one before, they'd be mad not to now. How else could they stop the frequent, random unprovoked aggression from the US?

Every time someone steps behind the wheel of the car, the (apparent) chances of them causing a death is so many times higher than writing a name in a Death Note that the latter is completely negligible.

No, that's completely different. Pointing an unloaded gun at someone is 1) a threat, because they might not know it's unloaded, 2) a violation of established rules and norms about firearm safety, which exist because 3) the gun may be loaded even if you believe it isn't, this is a fairly common cause of accidents.

What we're talking about with a Death Note is something so implausible that it could cause harm that no reasonable person would expect it to work. There's an enormous difference between "I thought the gun wasn't loaded but it was," and, "I thought magic wasn't real but it was.

I agree with someone in this thread who said you don't just get one freebie, but at least three. If I were on a jury and the prosecutor wanted to convince me that the defense knowingly killed people by writing names in a notebook, I imagine there is some finite number that would convince me, not only that it works, but that a reasonable person would expect it to work at the time they wrote the name - but that number might be like a dozen. It certainly wouldn't be one.

If I say, "Damn him!" about someone, and it turns out that Hell is real and that saying that actually causes people to be sent to Hell, am I morally culpable for that? Let's say I attempt to hex someone, knowing full well that it doesn't work, but just using it as a way to express my frustrations - but then it turns out hexes are real and I actually hexed them?

You can't read in a significant malicious intent if a person takes an action that they have every reason to believe is harmless.

I'd recommend reading some of The Illustrated Guide to Law which covers relevant concepts, albeit from a legal perspective rather than a moral one

:::spoiler spoiler

It's sad because for most people school is about the only time anybody cares enough about your thoughts to actually read an essay and respond to it intelligently.

Exactly.

See also: Military Operations Other Than War, Low Intensity Conflicts, Police Action (e.g. Vietnam).

What are the democrats gonna do to them? They've got nothing to be afraid of, look what happened to Bush.

Well, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional - but in the other direction. Deploying military force requires a declaration of war, which requires congressional approval, but the War Powers Act circumvents that by pretending that using euphemisms to describe military actions instead of calling it war makes it different, somehow.

I specifically disabled my watch history to get this. If I want to watch something, I'll go to my subscriptions. Why would I want to interact with YouTube's algorithm?

Troll.

I'd just like to remind you that I started out trying to have an intelligent, civil conversation. Sorry you were too dumb to keep up. Sad that this is all you've got, I genuinely pity you.

That's not how logic works, dumbass. That's not a thing. If you want to apply my standard, you have to apply it consistently.

What you're probably trying to do, very badly, is a reductio ad absurdum, where you show that accepting my position would lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion. The problem is that my position doesn't lead to any absurd conclusions, so what you've done is assume my position, and then assume the opposite of my position in the same line of logic. Naturally, if you assume self-contradictory positions, then the result will be absurd, but that doesn't prove anything except that you don't understand how logic works. It's not self-contradiction if you have to flip back and forth between your standard and mine to get there.

But then, of course you don't understand logic because you operate on blind faith.

Let me dumb this down to your level.

"Double" is a word for when you have two of something.

You use one standard when looking at whether the media is lying.

You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.

1+1=2

So, you're using a double standard.

That means that your logic is complete bullshit. End of story.

A child could understand this. If you can't, you're either brain damaged or trolling.

Yep. And we've somehow gone backwards from there.

Again, you're literally flipping the standard halfway through your chain of "reasoning" 🤣 You don't get to apply your absurdly generous standard to them and my reasonable standard to me, that's not how logic works. You have to either be reasonable in both cases or be absurdly generous in both cases.

It doesn't really matter how much reason or evidence I present to you, can't argue with blind faith. It seems you're not only unwilling to reason and think critically, but unable to.

I weep for our education system. I suppose it's achieved it's objective of producing an unquestioningly loyal subject incapable of thinking for yourself or reasoning independently, following whatever your told. You must be an American, because only my countrymen are this confidently stupid.