It’s similar in that you presented a position that was not backed up by a reasonable interpretation of the data you also provided.

What you did was different, in that is was a brief misunderstanding of the wording rather than a fundamental misunderstanding of causation and correlation.

it didn’t seem defensive as much as dismissive.

Honestly i could have just been reading tone in your response that wasn’t there, i get that wrong more often than i would like, if so i apologise.

The gist you actually provided was “you are doing a bad thing and I’m disappointed in you, smh” and then proceeded to do something very similar followed by a non-apology.

I actually agree with your point but it’s still a shitty way to do it.

That’s exactly my point, you are taking the stance that people didn’t buy alan wake because it wasn’t on steam, to a degree that’s true, i’m saying that i think a larger proportion didn’t buy it specifically because it was on EGS.

If it were released as a game you could buy and play sans-platform, then i’d agree with you. It’d certainly see less sales than a steam release, because steam is where everyone is.

My stance is basically if you remove steam entirely, Standalone Sales > EGS. Add steam back in and you get Steam > Standalone > EGS

Think in terms of food, you’re basically saying the it’s the fault of the 3.5 star monopolistic countrywide chain fast food place that nobody want’s to eat at the recently health-inspection-failing 1 star food-poisoning cafe.

Is there a monopoly, sure, is the competition so bad people avoid it regardless of the monopoly, also yes.

If you were using something like GOG as an example, i’d fully agree with you, but EGS has seemingly infinite funds and they still managed to release something so bad nobody wants to use it, even for “free” games.

It’s not even just the platform, epic as a company have a reputation, so they have to also overcome that, which they have not.

That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by

Historically there’s been no need to be worried, generally, i agree that’s not ideal, but again name a viable comparable alternative.

even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.

You mean as opposed to the company that actually lost a class action regarding loot boxes in their game targeted at children?

You aren’t even wrong about this but “People don’t buy games from this company who famously lost a lawsuit regarding gambling targeted at kids because this other company who also do sketchy kids gambling things are …better at PR?” isn’t a convincing argument.

Everyone should be better at this, but they aren’t.

I will preface this with : I have many games that are not in steam that I play regularly, I understand this isn’t the norm, I have zero paid games in EGS and outside of checking the platform I never use it.

Alan wake on EGS is a terrible example to support your claim.

It’s like being upset that a fancy new car hasn’t recouped costs when it’s only available in 4 custom made dealers that are only open half the time and the manufacturer refuses to allow it to be sold in all the places people normally buy cars.

Sure, that is certainly a choice but it’s a choice that would have been part of the risk assessment before the money was sunk.

Steam does have a monopoly, because it works and there isn’t anything better.

There is a bit of resistance to switching, most game libraries are in steam because it’s been the best option for a very long time.

If EGS worked well and epic (outside of unreal engine) wasn’t such a shitshow the platform would be fine.

It’s doesn’t and they aren’t so it’s not.

It can’t compete on features, support or stability so it tried exclusivity, that hasn’t worked out for them.

Steam has its own shit, sure, that percentage is some apple level monopolist bullshit.

Name a comparable, viable alternative?

So a deflection and a personal attack rather than an actual answer, that explains a lot.

I’ll just assume yes and save us both some back and forth.

No need for a follow up non-reply , i won’t see it.

… just to be clear, you think “South East Asia” refers to it’s location relative to europe and not it’s relative location to the rough centre of Asia ?

So, south america is called that because it’s … south of europe ?

Not sure how versed/willing you are to selfhost but I’ve heard good things about tube archivist.

There are also a bunch of ui’s for yt-dlp, though i can’t vouch for quality.

It’s somewhat of a catch, that’s generally how monopolistic moats work but you really shouldn’t be relying on google as a backup service for obscure videos you wish to keep.

I’ve no idea of the amount of lectures, guides, documentaries and other non-entertainment media that is available exclusively on youtube, but again it isn’t an archiving service.

They can, will and have deleted whole channels for various reasons, most of which were bullshit, if you find something you absolutely have to keep, download it.

That being said, the process of downloading, archiving and curating content on anything more than a trivial scale can be much more involved than it seems, especially if you want backups/redundancy.

I’ve never been a big youtube user so my opinion on this is coloured by the fact that i don’t have that much invested in the platform.

Literally any other form of entertainment.

Though the statement was to stop using it, not replace it.

Uhg, the self-serving know it all liberal who answers their own questions and thinks they’re 100% correct is a big part of the unpopularity of Democrats and a huge enabling factor for Trump.

Self-serving applies to almost everyone, especially in politics, that’s not a “left” specific trait.

Answering your own questions is annoying in a scenario where the side being asked the question will respond with an actual and coherent answer.

I’m not cherry-picking here, spin up almost any “debate” you’d consider “left vs right” (in the US at least) and consider how much of that is being done in good faith.

They both agreed that Mexican migration is the largest population migrating… But that point wasn’t acknowledged by the liberal, because they had something else to say…

According to your own edit 55% of illegal immigration is from Mexico, so that means 45% of immigration is not from mexico, perhaps the point being made is that if you look in to the percentage of raids per community it’s probably not 55% mexican.

That doesn’t refute or ignore the mexican percentage being what it is, it points out the apparent disparity in enforcement, which is probably the point.

…yep, and the liberal media thinks this comic is a great point in favour of their righteousness - when it’s EXACTLY why they lost, and why Republicans become more extreme. They just get so sick of the smug badgering that they just want to troll and annoy the left, to the point they’ll vote for Trump and his loose knit-wit antics.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume “they” in “they just get so sick” includes you, i could be wrong however.

Having said that, i don’t disagree that not being able to appeal to a larger base was a major contributing factor in why they lost, at least in my opinion.

They lacked a coherent strategy and relied far too much on people understanding that the other side were grifters, a plan which ultimately worked so poorly that you now get elon musk as de-facto president.

But i will also acknowledge the difficulty in appealing to a base of people who include literal neo nazi’s, standard bigots, people willing to join an insurrection and pretty much anyone who wholeheartedly subscribes to the current republican regime.

There are people in the middle ground, the (largely white) people systematically left behind by the system over many years.

Unfortunately such people are easy pickings for a groups of grifters with appealing soundbites and a proven track record of either not following through at all, or following through to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving.

The systems in place aren’t designed to help these people, they are designed to give them just enough hope to keep them working.

Running on a platform of nice sounding lies is easier when you don’t actually have to follow through.

If you have to become the party of nice sounding lies to appeal to enough of the voter base to gain power, is that a victory ?

No wonder Trump’s popularity with minorities increased. Maybe listen to the working class masses for a change, and accept they don’t pay attention to the same barage of identity politics the ivory tower does. Nor do they have the same class interests as that liberal elite.

Agreed, though they do in fact have shared interests it’s just not apparent from the messaging.

[EDIT: Mexico makes up 55% of illegal migration. European countries aren’t even in the top 10 list of countries of origin. America is a downgrade for most Europeans, that lady’s smugness is unearned because if we’re going by the stats, India and Asia are the next largest problem areas.]

See the first point above.

You’ve pointed out why the statements made by the lady are correct in both a technical and literal perspective.

If you are seeing smugness here, that’s indicative of who you are, for better or worse.

Some A-Train shenanigans afoot

Oh i see where my confusion is coming from, you’re the personification of a county.

That is entirely my bad for thinking you were talking about either voting population or actual population, neither of which has a vast majority of anything.

You were just talking about how you and your swing state county personification buddies won out by a narrow margin.

What were there, like 10 of you, 12? i suppose 7 or 8 out of ~12 could be considered a vast change.

You have defeated me sir (or whatever the pronoun for a county is) , with unassailable logic, facts and a true understanding of statistics and the word “vast”.

I concede.

Just realised that if you are struggling with “vast” you might not understand what a personification of something is, if so , disregard all of the above it isn’t going to make any sense.

Dammit forgot the rating.

Repeating of a factually incorrect statement, self-proclaimed victory over a position not claimed or proven.

1/10 - lacks originality, no personal attacks, no strawmen, no fallacies at all as far as i can tell, not even a single slur.

A single easily provable mis-truth and then a self proclaimed victory over an imaginary battle, what is this amateur hour?

If a gambit doesn’t land, you switch tactics or double down, come on now, it’s like you aren’t even trying.

Moving goalposts again? you’ve already used that twice, le sigh

“vast majority” and “majority” aren’t the same, i specifically called out the vast part…but you do you.

yes, finally an lgbt dig i was losing hope at this point but i get it now, you were keeping it in reserve, i can’t wait to see what you do with the immigrants, perhaps even we can hope for some drag queen action?..wait no, don’t tell me, i want it to be a surprise.

a bit weak after that though

provable unlikelihood presented as fact x2 , then lie that is easily provable and contradicts your own stance ( and still fundamentally misunderstands the difference between regular and voting population )

You did get the slogan in though so some extra points for that, weird capitalisation, but close enough.

hmm, a tough call this one…i’ll give it a 6/10, a couple new bingo entries but repetition and self contradiction are fairly weak.

Easily provable lie, hope stated as fact, victory claimed on position never stated.

Come on guy it’s like you aren’t even trying anymore.

Still no immigrants, not even an LGBT ? Really?

lacklustre 2/10 shitpost, must try harder.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-office-razor-thin-house-gop-majority/story?id=116274023

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-size-of-donald-trumps-2024-election-victory-explained-in-5-charts

https://www.wusf.org/2024-12-03/trump-falls-just-below-50-in-popular-vote-but-gets-more-than-in-past-elections

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/donald-trump-historic-landslide-win-lie

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5213810/2024-presidential-election-popular-vote-trump-kamala-harris

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/22/how-big-was-donald-trumps-victory-8-charts-provide/

in fairness that last one did use the phrase “vast majority” to describe the number of counties that shifted to red, not the actual number of votes

I know i highlighted the difference between the two statements but i’m not expecting you to understand how statistics works or acknowledge the difference so don’t strain yourself.

Moving goalpoats, unrelated, more goalpost moving, claiming victory without any actual rebuttal, semi-truth, hope stated as fact, implication of stance not actually taken.

Hmm, a bit derivative but overall a solid entry, not as good as the last, still no immigrant references, i’ll give this a 7/10 shitpost.

Hey, if you want to reinterpret what “vast majority” in the context of a political win means, you do you.

Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept of voting population.

You hit all the highlights, personally i’d have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?

A solid 8/10 shitpost.

Vast means large btw, as in big.

So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it’s all good right ?

I also noted you conveniently didn’t address this in your response.

Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?

I’m not saying that laws aren’t useful for this purpose I’m saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.

As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647

By your proposed framework, you’re cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.

To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I’m not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I’m using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.

So your baseline is whether or not something is criminal.

That’s easily solved, create laws outlawing the undesirable behaviour, such as the ones in Germany regarding Nazi paraphernalia.

Or the ones defining potentially damaging behaviour as a reason for denying visa access… give it a sec, I’m sure you’ll get it.

Obligatory, countries outside of the US exist and, I imagine rather inconveniently for your argument, have their own laws.

But if your definition of the basis of democracy is freedom of speech except for when there is a law specifically preventing it then you probably have bigger concerns than weak foundations for your arguments.

I disagree, the consequences of how people see and interact with you based on that one vote isn’t separate from any other consequences the vote has.

TL;DR;

Hyperbole and “black and white” thinking aren’t a good foundation for claiming moral superiority.

I’m familiar. I don’t know how anyone on Lemmy would not be familiar with it by this point as it’s one of the main go to justifications people use for treating others like shit.

That’s…certainly…one of the takes of all time.

I’m personally astounded you chose that particular quote, but i’ll highlight an important part for you as well.

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

I personally wouldn’t attribute “open to rational argument” and “kept in check by public opinion” as hallmarks of a majority of trump voters, but that’s just me.

Daryl Davis, a black musician who managed to turn multiple KKK members by simply engaging with them as human beings.

A good example of a single person making a difference.

I’m genuinely not sure how you think this can be applied at scale, are you expecting all the people who didn’t vote for trump to dedicate their lives to reforming the people actively trying to do horrible things to them.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump,

Roughly half of the people who voted, but ok.

it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

A few things:

“Just decide” implies it was a sudden decision with no lead up, that is incorrect.

Where are you getting the idea that people are expecting trump voters to magically change for the better?

It sounds like you would like them to, which is nice, but that’s a broad generalisation for no citation.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump, it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

That’s an extreme amount of projection.

Broadly claiming that everyone is the maximum amount of intolerant to anyone even slightly of the grouping you’ve specified is disingenuous at best, further claiming they are all doing this to magically change the minds of said group is equally ridiculous.

and further down :

self righteously justify not making any fucking attempt to reach these people and turn them.

If you genuinely think no attempts have been made up to now, I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I’m sure it’s an interesting story.

Self-righteous, like “nobody but me is doing the thing i think is right, in the way that i think is correct” ?

Feels like I’m taking crazy pills.

It feels that way because you’ve set up a catch-all scenario which encompasses your specific perspective and doesn’t allow for perspectives that don’t align.

If you remove the ability to handle nuance from your perspective then any nuance that arises will seem crazy.

Example of nuance.

“A non-trivial portion of this group of people have voted a specific way, with the understanding that doing so will materially endanger people i love, I have a limited amount of energy and I’m choosing not to spend it sorting through who are the ‘saveable’ bigots and instead direct that energy toward protecting my loved ones (and myself) from the consequences of their actions.”