I understand that argument, but to me that departs from normal parlance of the kind that would ever be used in a meme.

I think the meme is suggesting that they were literally made by “the West” but maybe I’m missing something

deleted by creator

and go to collage.

This is who I want telling me reading is bad

So I’m not a fan of guns but, “marketing guns” is not per se illegal nor unique to video games. Yet the lawsuit separates out video games specifically. So I am not sure I agree that it’s less crazy at the end of the day.

So I did read the article, and… I’m not understanding a word you are saying. The families are suing a video game company for a gun in their video game. Also the article is not at all making the emphasis that you are making between marketing a specific game and video games writ large (the article kind of speaks to both of those at the same time and isn’t making any such distinction), so I don’t know what you are talking about. As far as the article is concerned this has everything to do with the fact that the gun was in a video game, and even Activisions statement in response was to defend themselves from the idea that their video game is a thing that pushing people to violence. So even Activision understands the lawsuit as tying their video game to violence.

I’m not saying I agree with the logic of the suit, but I literally have no idea what you think in the article separates out video games from the particular model of gun because that is just not a thing the article does at all.

Fast forward to today, I ended up killing him and am writing this from jail.

Okay, important question here: are you writing this on Android or iPhone?

It’s really interesting how the right has embraced moral relativism on a case-by-case basis. Often it is a strategy to quarantine/localize ideas, so as to avoid the need to reconcile them to any broader worldview.

It’s also a strategy for insulating ideas and events from history that they want to shelter from criticism, like criticizing slavery, theocracy, monarchism, etc. I’ve seen real cases in the wild where criticism of slavery was dismissed as “presentism”, as inappropriately imposing present day moral values.

Between Dale and Amelia, the Earnhart family has been through a lot.

social hierarchy studies have primarily been done on lobsters and wolves

I’m skeptical. I’ll grant you wolves, but even then, wolves I feel are no more or less studied than a bunch of other species which are subject of extensive interest, especially primates, dolphins and orcas, but also lions, hyenas, meerkats, bees and ants. At least those are all studied well enough that we have plenty to pick from.

I appreciate your point though that its ideologically driven anyway and that it’s all moot and 100% agree.

It wouldn’t even matter if it was “right”. The idea of looking to wolves for models of ideal human behavior is wrong for like 17 different reasons, even if it were technically true as a description of wolf behavior.

P.S. why do AlphaBros specifically look at wolves, or lobsters, to instruct us on social hierarchy? There are so many other animals, those seem pretty random choices. And pretty far afield from humans. Wouldn’t you at least want something more proximate to us humans on the evolutionary tree? Heck, why not just use humans as a reference point?

And the original concept, as it pertains to wolves, is evidently not a thing. So if we’re just saying things, the software metaphor is as good as any other.

Pretty sure the Scrub Daddy came first! It gained huge notoriety for being on Shark Tank, as one of if not the most successful Shark tank product in history, and it’s now in every Walmart and Dollar store in the country.

So the meme treats the derivative like it’s the original, which I suppose is true to form as an indicator of how people lose track of ideas as they get constantly recirculated.

Yeah and I meant what I said that you don’t get what divisive actually means.

Did people forget what divisive means? I would say it’s exactly the opposite of divisive, it’s a comment that is produced as much singular unified reaction as you could possibly get.

Don’t worry, it’s 76 and counting.

In Tolkien stories, all the good guys are liberals. Saruman and his uruk-hai are perhaps the most leftist things there are in those stories. Elves are moderate conservatives with some questionable histories.

I hope everyone here appreciates what a special moment this is. This has potential to be the most downvoted comment on Lemmy.

Thank you for demonstrating my point without the slightest hint of irony.

Do you really not understand that there’s a conceptual distinction there at all? You started out by saying it’s a proud leftist tradition to call out other lefties for not being left enough. Which, honestly, fair enough.

But you think even the very idea of a conceptual distinction between liberals and leftists is an example of that? That’s fucking nuts, and it’s not the nuanced point you think it is.

It’s like what Aristotle said about the differences between the Rash, the Courageous, and the Cowardly.

The Rash person thinks the courageous man is too cowardly, and the cowardly person thinks the courageous one is too rash. So everyone will declare that they the others are extreme, and in so doing they build their biases in.

This is the problem with unqualified statements about who’s to the left of who, and especially the problem with both-sidesism. The act of making that kind of statement doesn’t happen in some platonic realm of innocent and honest self-reflection, and is every bit as poisoned by politicization as every other political activity.

It doesn’t mean there’s no truth or you can’t say stuff like this, but it does mean that we’re all within our rights to dismiss you as a bullshit artist if you don’t show your work.

I love this, nobody can actually defend this as a healthy way of engaging with politics.