zqps

The distinction may seem like nitpicking but no, CSAM is a legally defined term of depictions of actual children being sexually abused.

This game does not feature any such content. Not just because there are no depictions of real children, but also because the fictional children depicted aren’t subjected to sexual abuse.

Valve’s language cites “sexual conduct” which in this case reportedly (I didn’t watch it myself) has been stretched to include nudity that is non-sexual in nature.

I get why Valve would err on the side of caution, but that TOS decision is no basis to turn around and make the legally relevant claim that the game features actual CSAM.

We all know what that’s code for. I have never been to the US in my life, and yet as a white European I’d be accosted much less than tens of millions of US citizens.

If only he was closer to his predecessors in other ways too.

FYI there’s scripts that will fully activate windows, not via any local modifications to the OS, but via the official Microsoft activation servers.

That’s a new sentiment. Most games try to occupy as much of their players’ time as possible.

I think this is a joke about the first copper-tier sponsor.

Does it perhaps have the “remote control session” feature that Spotify has when logged in on multiple devices? I’ve ditched Spotify but am still looking for a platform with this feature.

Yes but that’s the reason why adding ice is the standard, if not policy.

Adding ice is just filling your cup with 60% water. Filling the same cup with the same drink and no ice would be less profitable because you’d wait longer to order another.

The joke can also be read as the pointe being the stupidity of the second person for exactly the reason you gave.

It’s not. Roundabouts work better than intersections.

The whole game can even be read as propaganda against car-centric traffic management, because road planning just becomes a nightmare at some point that incentivizes you heavily to diversify into public transportation and even walkable city blocks.

the bigger issue is that generally people think men are evil by default, and women are good by default. and that’s not a cultural assumption most folks are willing to look past.

I consider myself a feminist and I vehemently disagree with that take, nor does it reflect in any way the commonly held views in the relevant communities.

Women and men are people. All people hold the capacity for good and evil within them. The real differences are 1) our respective socialization, and 2) the way we are perceived and treated by society based on our gender. That’s not an individual issue, but a systemic one.

I’ve been part of a few support groups for men that regularly received appreciation from women specifically because they were aimed at helping men in recognition of this fact, and thus didn’t revolve into inceldom and gender war nonsense.

That’s the only context in which that comment makes sense.

So in short, this question could have been used in all sorts of ways to provide an answer that clarified the commenter’s position.

I mean, in the way it was asked not really. It was explicitly asked, or rather condescendingly demanded, as a simple binary choice stripped of all context.

That’s not how you engage with someone when you actually want to get their take on a complex issue. That’s how you engage if you want to score an easy win for upvotes. And I for one am done with that kinda hostile “debate bro” culture / popularity contest that’s defined many subreddits over the years. It shuts down any chance for an actual exchange. So let’s not act surprised at the result.

I know it’s a quote. So considering that nazis are a subset of fascists, what’s “LMAO” about saying that not all fascists are nazis? It is a simple logical conclusion of the first statement.

Yeah. So it is as I said, it seems you got the order mixed up here. This comment makes no sense otherwise.

https://vger.to/lemmy.ml/comment/22310543

Yeah it was asked in bad faith and framed in a manipulative way.

That’s not a good thing and should be called out, no matter if you disagree with the person it was directed at. It’s called integrity.

Yea and not all dogs are poodles. I think you got the order confused further up.

Yes, it’s a dogs vs poodles thing. Shouldn’t be so hard to understand.

The question itself was a cheap gotcha. Shockingly, it’s not as simple as that as I’ve been pointing out. Which you’d acknowledge if you were arguing in good faith.

It’s unfortunate that any attempt to insert some nuance automatically makes me the enemy in your simplistic position on the matter. And now ego prevents you from backing off of this kind of thinking by any means, no matter what toxic and regressive conclusions it takes you to.