🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@lupyuen No, thank you with such wonderful and consistent contributions to our community.

@Baley Very sad to hear :(

@Baley I am not sure.. according to protondb (which is the layer that lets you run windows native games in linux) most other users seem to be running it out of the box without any other problems. That said it also only has a "silver" rating, which suggests it still has some compatibility issues.

I usually find 95% of windows-only games work on linux perfectly, sometimes even better than windows.. but 5% dont and usually that 5% is limited to newly released games and the bugs get fixed in time.

@Baley The style of this statement is so contrary to the sort of polarization we hear in america.. which is usually something like "If you dont vote for my guy you are a nazi/*tard"... if only more countries could be less polarized like this...

@admitsWrongIfProven

> It could be so, but @TruthSandwich does not explaint its views... no way to understand, no way to be sure.

He does have a tendency to be quick to dismiss people.. I have been critical towards him about this before.

> are your values not to be as reasonable as possible? How do our views differ?

I wouldnt use the word reasonable, but that would apply. My morality centers around minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness in the world. All my values derive from this one core principle.

That said, agreeing in intent and in values isnt necessarily the same... We might both be striving towards reasonableness yet decide a very different set of values embodies that.

@TruthSandwich

@Baley I bought it but it is too buggy to play on linux right now sadly... i mean you can play but the graphics are crazy buggy.

@lupyuen Good luck, I know youll do amazing! I hope you share with us your results.

@admitsWrongIfProven

The irony of you two getting along despite having more similar views than either of you probably have with me is... well.. odd.

@TruthSandwich

@lxo

The interpritations you offered is not a "perfectly reasonable way"... they are technically factually true, but still very unreasonable to compare where we are now with the start of the epidemic (which had a single starting case).

> your response made it clear you've done no such search

How ya figure, during my discussion I provided actual figures for various points of time and various locations... this shows quite the opposite that I did in fact did a search and made sure to speak from fact.

> you jumped at one interpretation you disagreed with, and responded in a way, if I weren't familiar with your earlier stances, would have suggested that you were the one minimizing the harm brought about by covid-19.

That is true, I mocked the original posted and responded sarcastically. I can indeed see how someone might miss that sarcasm and think I was being literal.

However, once that confusion was apparent I explicitly stated I was being sarcastic... at which point they no longer had any excuse to lean on a mistake in communication, because it was cleared up. Yet they continued to act the way they did.

So while this may excuse the initial response, it does not excuse the fact that, once corrected, they continued to respond the way they did.

> and that appears to be the way the interlocutor read it

Sure but when explicitly told they read it wrong and this was explained this excuse evaporates, and their behavior continued.

> and it went down the hill from there.

As one would except when the other party made an assumption about my stance and then ignored me when I clarified their mistake... you can blame them for the initial misunderstanding but not the continued behavior once thsi was clarified.

> thus my diagnosis of violent agreement, and that you're both talking past each other.

Im not sure its violent agreement, we have the same intent perhaps (we see covid as real and serious)... but that is not the same on agreeing that what he said wasnt massively harmful to the community. Intent only gets you so far. Suggesting we are in the same state now, by any objective metric, as we were before the vaccine is either highly misleading, and harmful, or blatantly wrong, and therefore just as harmful.

@gfarrell

I agree with the intent here, in the message.. but the argument this makes seems to be opposite of the intent,

Seems to be saying the only way there isnt a contradiction is if a 12 year old is both mature enough to give birth and check out a book... or if she isnt mature enough to give birth and therefore not mature enough to check out a book.

This suggests (incorrectly) that we either need to legalize abortion and ban books, or illegalize abortion and not ban books....

@randahl I dont have much hope he will be arrested for this.. but I would be quite pleased if he was :)

but only because I have no sympathy for him, not because I see anything inherently illegal for stating someone committed treason, and that treason carries the death penalty.

@admitsWrongIfProven

The person accused of toxicity and driving people to the other side is the person i quote tooted in the OP.

@TruthSandwich

@admitsWrongIfProven

I assume you are asking the Sandwich?

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

Whether I agree or disagree, lets again take this as truth for the sake of argument.

This still proves my point, that by being toxic and attacking people who are on your side you will ultimately drive them to the other side and turn their otherwise unexpressed bigotry into far more expressed and harmful bigotry.

No matter how you slice it the sort of toxic behavior I called out serves to add support to the other side and take away your own supporters... At best you may drive them to a middle to a third party (which in your headis almost as bad)

@admitsWrongIfProven

@admitsWrongIfProven

to be fair he never specifically said iether of us were bigots.. he did say that if someone switches from DNC to GOP in general they are just a bigot and not caused by any attacks fromt he DNC.

Since I am NOT a supporter of the GOP his remarks did not apply to me.

@TruthSandwich

@TruthSandwich

Alright, thats fair, and ill accept them as axioms for the purpose of this discussion.

But im not sure it answers the question I just asked either.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@ioletsgo Gay people, totally sounds fictional... I mean unless they are an alient species with a single gender, that sounds realistic, but not actual humans!