Trump was not involved in the writing of that statement.

it does not invalidate my argument if I don’t waste effort on someone who clearly isn’t continuing in good faith.

Well, this comment of yours doesn’t look like a good faith argument.

Neither did your comment of

So who debates in good faith and how often?

Someone JAQing off is not having a good faith argument, and it does not invalidate my argument if I don’t waste effort on someone who isn’t continuing in good faith.

I see the argument you’re hinting at, and it doesn’t invalidate the argument either, but I’m not going to spend time debating an argument you haven’t bothered to actually make.

If you can’t see how your behavior isn’t a real discussion I don’t want to have one.

You literally said it’s impossible to have a real discussion online, and now you’re criticising someone for not engaging you in the way you want to have a “real discussion”?

Apparently not you.

If you’re debating in good faith you are bettering yourself by improving your understanding of a different view point, and letting your own views be challenged so you can reassess if you still hold them.

If your goal in an argument is to change the other person’s mind, then changing your mind (by taking in new information, learning, and understanding a different point of view) is seen as losing. That’s a terrible way to look at what is ultimately personal growth.

goof means paedo in Canada

No it doesn’t.

It’s not enough for a company to have a lot of money, they have to have all the money.

Remember: under capitalism companies are legally obligated to pursue every last dollar they can possibly get, regardless of the damage it will do to the product, company, customer, or bystanders.

Pixel graphics is not a selling point. I will tolerate pixel graphics if the gameplay is good (Deadcells, Stardew Valley, The Last Spell), but if I see pixel graphics that is already a mark against the game.

having a pause button isn’t bad, but it doesn’t add anything while being unable to pause can

I was playing a game recently and was fighting a boss whose gimmick was controlling time. I paused the game and the boss quipped at me and then unpaused the game. It was impressive and amusing in the moment, but very quickly became an issue of “no seriously, I need to be able to pause”.

If work calls, someone knocks on my door, or my cat knocks something over I need to be able to set the game aside and not have it demand my attention. Having pause doesn’t add anything because we’ve become accustomed to it, not having pause is noticeable because it subtracts, not because it adds. I’ve never had a gameplay experience that would have been better by not having pause available to me.

Gameplay should be about overcoming challenges, not overcoming inconvenience. If my equipment degrading just means I need to stop playing the game for 5 minutes to do the digital chores of collecting wood and stone that is not adding to the experience, it is just padding the playtime.

When World of Warcraft removed portals to “make the world feel big,” which ultimately results in players pointing their flying mount in a direction and waiting longer to get somewhere that doesn’t improve the game. It is ultimately a design problem, but the fault is not in the convenience tools, it’s in the lack of meaningful gameplay without them.

Hank?

The fact that they haven’t issued lawsuits already makes it more difficult to start them now.

Then don’t use MS Office?

Fair enough. I’m just fulfilling Lemmy’s contractual obligation to mention Linux any time someone doesn’t want to “upgrade” to Windows 11.

Have you heard the good news about Linux?

It’s also anarchist because it is telling people to stop doing the things they’ve been instructed to do.

If someone says it’s ok to kill them and you do. It’s still murder

I agree. Just because the law says something is ethical (like murdering gay people) that doesn’t mean it’s actually ethical.

Similarly, just because the law says something is unethical (like two prisoners consenting to having sex) that does not make them rapists.

they aren’t producing something for someone else

They are if they’re trading it for sex.

If the government declared two men could not consent to having sex with each other would you call gay men rapists? Or would you say that’s not how those words work?