Sentrovasi

In case my deletion of the comment wasn’t federated: mb, I didn’t realise it was an image post.

It’s weird cos you’re the only person bringing up pirating first (others are bringing it up as a talking point you’ve raised), and that’s not the dichotomy - it’s not dubious reselling sites or pirating, it’s Humble Choice, the topic of your post, where the games are already discounted, the developers have decided to opt in, and some money is actually going to charity.

Even if you bring up your original post as providing “options for everyone”, it was written in the spirit of advertising grey market sites as an alternative to Humble Choice, and therefore it’s entirely fair that others are bringing up the harms of grey market sites so that everyone knows what the risks are between them. I used to use those grey market sites as a kid more than a decade ago before I understood that they were a tool by scammers to make their money, and now I no longer use them. It would only be honest for you to have talked about that in your original post rather than ignoring it because the only alternative to you is piracy.

I think an echo chamber where everyone agrees that slurs and calls to genocide are bad is an echo chamber I’m fine with. We can argue the other stuff, but some things seem pretty cut and dry to me.

There’s a difference between conservatism and regressivism, and as you yourself keep saying, the Republicans you see on the internet (your source, apparently) are not just being conservative.

Which again, begs the question of why you think you’re qualified to claim that this is some “truth”.

And again, I’m completely sympathetic to the idea that uncritical hatred and demonising of “the other side” leads to uncritical and one-sided ideas of the “truth”.

What I think you’re missing is the nuance that someone can consider both sides and still consider that one side is indefensible. The disqualification of the modern Republican from being “good people” does not mean that someone has not carefully thought through their stand.

Now about how you react to bad people: you can give them a chance to be good - the benefit of the doubt that they may not actually be standing for everything that being a modern Republican involves. But like I said previously, it might be a good time for those people to re-evaluate whether they actually are Republicans (an archaic term that has no real meaning today beyond a party affiliation) or feel like maybe it’s time to recognise something has gone deeply wrong.

Then that leads to the even bigger question of how you know that not all Republicans - at least, its uniquely American construction - are bad?

(If you mean to say that in your country, republican is a beautiful-smelling flower, then the answer to that is that in common internet discourse, it has come to mean the American GOP, and people who may be taking the hyperbolic stance that all Republicans are bad are talking specifically about those Republicans. Just FYI.)

And don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge supporter of the idea that increased polarisation and demonisation of the other side is only going to push people towards extreme positions and alienate those who only support a small number out of the basket of things that are in that box: things that may be necessary for their continued survival or way of life.

Nonetheless, given what the Republican party has begun to stand for more and more, with its wilful ignorance and inexplicable support for Trump, it is becoming increasingly indefensible to believe that people who will vote for that particular team, regardless of the consequences, are not basically complicit in evil.

I personally don’t think all Republicans are bad. But even the good ones have had years to consider if maybe they were the baddies. And if they recognise that there are deplorables among them, then maybe they shouldn’t take criticism towards the loudest of them so personally either. And consider moving away from the Republican brand.

Wait, if you’re a Republican and you’re admitting that Republican politicians don’t have critical thinking ability, then why are you still voting for having them run a country and affecting the livelihoods of millions (billions) of people?

If the only Republican policies you’re supporting are benign ones (as a non-American, I don’t know which those are), are they worth all the ones that oppress and take away the rights of others?

And if you’re a Republican but not a fan or voter of the Republican party as it stands, then maybe you need to reconsider what your definition of a Republican is, because Republicans themselves today are defining themselves in ever-bolder terms.

I just went to check and it looks like they were banned for asking somebody to kill themselves…? Feels like maybe they shouldn’t be doing that, regardless of whether or not they were on their fifth account.

Their original comment used the same word “downline”, so I’m sure you can figure out from context that they’re asking if you want to help them do the same thing they’re already doing.

Yeah these posts by people who consistently get banned always have me feeling a little skeptical (no shade on OP if legit).

I believe you mean hypocrisy?

Neither might it be important to your audience. Communication isn't usually about communicating what's important to the speaker but what's important to the listener.

And I say this as someone who constantly has to do summaries at the end of even my shorter sentences because I end up overexplaining things.

Define language, define the world.

Really makes you think, doesn’t it?

The point is that it’s being defended against. That’s the whole point of this post. So your audience are people who are already entrenched against the fediverse, being faced with a Lemmy invasion. And they’re the kinds of people who relish these Reddit activities in the first place.

Do you think engaging with them in this incredibly superficial way is going to suddenly change their minds?

Or do you maybe think it might instead reinforce their cognitive biases now that they’ve spent a day and a half “defending” r/place against the militant minority?

But the whole point of coming here is I didn’t want to use the website and give them engagement.

I think part of the problem is that when everyone is pulling in different directions, the effect of people like me boycotting using Reddit entirely to try to make some kind of dent in their use statistics basically ends up doing nothing.

If you’re “defending” your banner, meaning refreshing and adding inputs on a regular basis, you’re providing a ton more engagement, views, and clicks, as well as getting other Reddit users more entrenched in their defense of their stupid website, than any other possible activity you could do on that site. So thanks, I guess.

The worst case scenario for r/place is a world where everyone just sits in their corner after populating it at the start. Zero stories, boring, people no longer want to engage. What you’re doing? Dramatic gold.