• 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle







  • Yeah, its a good thing Bethesda games aren’t really known for having a vibrant modding community. Otherwise a bunch of headlines saying “new update breaks mods” might turn away a bunch of players who had originally played it on console and would have bought it on PC to try those mods.

    Sarcasm aside, the amount of potential new players who changed their minds due to broken mods are far greater than the amount of new players who wouldn’t have gotten it if not for the update. If Bethesda dropped the update even a couple months ago, they could have had the best of both world. It was poorly timed, and definitely cost them sales.


  • I don’t see anything that they said about TikTok or ByteDance

    Smfh, so then you didn’t read what they said, since they specifically said:

    I acknowledge that TikTok is a problem.

    And given that Whataboutism is a tactic to discredit the severity of an accusation by pointing to similar or worse behaviors by others, this not only isn’t “textbook Whataboutism”, it’s not Whataboutism at all. Their point was that the scope of the issue exceeds TikTok, and as such, attempts to solve the issue by focusing on TikTok are either misguided or of suspect intent.

    In no way did they try to make the point that what TikTok does is okay, nor did they claim that TikTok wasn’t censoring content. I’d accuse you of trying to strawman their argument, but you just flat made up a different argument and pretended that was theirs instead.

    They are saying the forest is on fire, and you are accusing them of Whataboutism because they aren’t focusing on your favorite tree.



  • I guess my point is that you have no argument.

    I think you are mistaking me for t0fr. While I do think you had a terrible take, and did ask how it was relevant to what t0fr said about Bethesda’s Fallouts being known for having worse writing, I never argued that Bethesda’s games weren’t the most well known in the series. So, again I fail to see how what you are saying has any relevance to what was asked…

    But, for the sake of argument, the StarWars sequel trilogy had the highest combined box office of any of the trilogy’s by far. Does that mean the Sequel trilogy is the best of the three? Did it have the best writing? Does that mean that long time fans shouldn’t get an opinion when stories that they loved get steamrolled over?

    Dont get me wrong, I’m enjoying the Fallout show, and I like the Bethesda games. But sales numbers and ownership aren’t the be all end all of what makes good fiction. And pretending like it is largely plays a roll in why we get so much high budget schlock.





  • It is interesting that in this economy which is intentionally managed to create a shortage of jobs and to lower wages, that employees are expected to betray the public trust and even engage in illegal activity at the behest of their employers just to stay employed, and that some of us might find this as an acceptable state of affairs. And yes, when business goes sour for the company, those employees will be discarded with no additional acknowledgment for their loyalty.

    I fully agree with the point you are making here. It’s a fucked up system with a whole mess of badly designed incentives that cause people to be shitty to each other.

    My only disagreement is with your willingness to condemn innocent people who lost their jobs over the actions of a few. I worked for GeekSquad, data privacy violations were not only a fireable offense but also something those I worked with prided themselves on protecting. All of my coworkers were privacy advocates and enthusiasts who did not go digging through anyone’s personal data. Rather, oftentimes they would try to help clients be more informed, even risking their own job stability when doing so lost sales.

    There are good folks who didn’t deserve to lose their jobs, were not guilty of the actions you are upset over, and don’t deserve people callously implying they deserved it.




  • While the specific context and criteria may differ between the “No True Scotsman” and “No True Christian” fallacies, the underlying logical error remains the same: attempting to maintain a generalization or stereotype by selectively redefining the category to exclude inconvenient counterexamples. There is no meaningful difference. (In a somewhat ironic twist, you’ve essentially applied the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the concept itself.)

    I didn’t argue that China isn’t Communist because of trivial reasons like using sugar in their coffee; rather, my point was centered on their significant presence of a private sector. Just as you emphasize that democracy necessitates “free and democratic elections,” I similarly emphasize that Communism entails certain defining characteristics. The absence of private industry serves as a clear benchmark, not a moving target or an impossible standard, but a fixed criterion. Despite whatever label the controlling party in China holds, they fall short of meeting this criterion.

    In essence, you’re basing your argument on a false premise. Your definition of Communism holds as much weight as North Korea’s definition of Democracy. While you allow Democracy to define itself based on its ideology, you insist on defining Communism based on the actions of its deceitful actors.


  • Not at all. My statement simply pointed out a common mistake many people make when misusing the “No True Scotsman” or “appeal to purity” fallacy, as you did. This fallacy occurs when there is no clear, objective definition available, or when someone dismisses a valid counterexample.

    That’s why, since you have a clear definition in mind of what a Democratic Republic is, you immediately recognized the misuse of the term in North Korea’s case, and thus wouldn’t argue that stating it isn’t truly a Democratic Republic constitutes a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The same reasoning applies to China and Communism.

    Communism is a political, social, and economic ideology advocating for the replacement of private ownership and profit-based economies with a classless system of communal ownership. However, China has actively promoted private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, fostering the growth of a private sector. Therefore, China cannot be considered Communist.

    The definition of Communism can be tested and evaluated. China’s policies diverge from this definable concept, thus it doesn’t fall under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

    Edit: I just read further down, and realized you actually believe the only criteria for being part of a group is calling yourself as such.

    “If you call yourself a communist, you must be a communist”

    In a way yes… accept it as communism despite the failures of actually living up to the ideals.

    So… yeah, you honestly just don’t understand the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. But you do have a fun definition, by which the claim that North Korea is a Democratic Republic is affirmed. After all, if you call yourself a Democratic Republic, “in a way yes” you are.