• turtletracks@lemmy.zip
      0·
      1 month ago

      So is anyone rational actually leaving Godot? I saw that Redot, last I checked they were 52 commits behind, and their only 4 commits were changing any references of “Godot” in the code to “Redot”

      • burghler@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        1 month ago

        Personally I don’t think it’s wise to abandon Godot for a fork that will always lag behind and also just seems like a crude protest in retaliation. I think using Godot is fine as it is and unfortunately a con to the engine is we have to deal with silly politics from them being unfortunately in control of the Godot loudspeaker. I had to leave their discord because of the circlejerk they have going on was unbearable.

        I wish we could just have a professional space.

        • turtletracks@lemmy.zip
          0·
          1 month ago

          The community manager posted something about Godot being woke on Twitter in response to someone saying using a game engine is “woke”, and a bunch of repliers were banned, some bans were reasonable, some bans weren’t. The official response from Godot was pretty lackluster too.

          Posting anything progressive on Twitter is just stirring the pot at this point, and it’s a little funny, since the majority of game devs I’ve met have been incredibly leftist, a lot of the folks getting pissy weren’t game devs, but just capital G Gamers

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    29 days ago

    When you debate the bigots in the “Free Market of Ideas”, you basically say that these bigoted ideas are “Just as valid as any other”

    This is why you don’t see Temu shit on Target shelves, but in shady grey market apps.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    0·
    30 days ago

    The rational debate is so the on the fence people see the problems with the bigots rather than just the bigoted opinions/“proof”

    It’s about stopping the lies from spreading not changing an individual opinion. You could hardly call yourself a leftist if you don’t understand that

    • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 month ago

      You kind of can, but for the most part, it is better to just not engage unless they are showing themselves to be an open and honest interlocutor.

        • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
          0·
          1 month ago

          I’ve been trying to find an alternative to interlocutor because I didn’t think it made sense in english. Life is about to get much easier !

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      1 month ago

      The uncommitted/third party vote is what caused biden to drop out of the race. It could also very well cost the democrats the election.

      When a minority group has outsized power due to circumstance, they should use it to affect the change they want.

      The point isnt to make democrats lose its to put pressure on them to drop their worst positions, which happen to include genocide.

      You can argue that you think it won’t work, but its a prediction. Noone knows, which is why even among Muslims this debate has people on both sides.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        1 month ago

        None of what you said is how anything works in US government. Biden has some crazy takes on the war in Gaza, but it’s rooted in them being our allies and something else that I have no idea about.

        3rd party in a 2 party system just takes away votes from another person. You have to calculate who that’s gong to be and assess the risk to the people and government.

        When a single party is in charge of the both the house and senate and there are no assholes that can be bought off, that’s the only time things can be changed.

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 month ago

    The apple fell somewhere completely devoid of apple trees and scientists could not trace it back to the tree of origin.

  • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
    0·
    29 days ago

    This is such a braindead take. Humanity is networked. You can cut a link, but you can’t disconnect someone from yourself unless you yeet them out of existence

    Drive them into bigot echo chambers and someone has to deal with them thinking everyone is secretly as bigoted as them

    Respond in kind - if they’re rational, defeat them with reason. If they’re a dumbfuck, quote then and mock how stupid their words are. If they’re a troll, counter troll them

    And when they feel bad for saying bad things, offer an olive branch. Highlight the path back to being a respectable person

    You don’t need to be equipped to do it all - I’m personally good at counter trolling and reaching out to those already verbally beaten down

    We all have to live with these people - we all have a have a responsibility to do our part. Give them the social rejection they deserve when they say unacceptable things - people who don’t learn from logic learn emotionally, so make them feel bad. It’s ok to attack those attacking others unfairly - just always leave a path back to acceptance

    Kill them or rehabilitate them - those are the only options that fix the problem

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      29 days ago

      It’s less about cutting them off as a person and more about banning them from a page, group, or platform. Like banning them from a Mastodon instance or Lemmy server.

      • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
        0·
        28 days ago

        That’s my point - you’re cutting them off from negative feedback in a very low risk setting. They still vote. They come to Thanksgiving. They work and shop around you. And most people don’t quit social media after getting a ban - they find somewhere more hospitable. They go soothe each other by turning bigotry into a sense of belonging. Then, having normalized saying horrible things, it comes out elsewhere

        The better outcome is that a healthy community circles around them and calls them an asshole, and hopefully a few people explain why they’re being an asshole

        Yes, feelings can be hurt, but this is a best case scenario even on that front - when someone says something terrible to you and the community leaps to your defense, it hurts a lot less. I’d go so far as to call it empowering

        Some people need safe spaces, because they’ve been traumatized. Safe spaces should exist for people to heal - but they should be limited and small corners.

        Humans need to mix. They naturally adjust to social norms - I think the last decade has shown us that bigots who hold their tongue are much better than ones convinced it’s socially acceptable to say horrible things

        Moderation has a place, but it should be dedicated only to keeping the community healthy - a healthy community is a community that can police itself. Spammers have no place in a healthy community, because they exploit the medium of communication. Doxing is generally the same. Continuous personal attackers eventually prove they deserve exile from the community. A community under attack from outsiders might need a more decisive hand to return to health

        But a healthy community should have dissidents. Modern communities are just little shards of society as a whole - if you’re not spreading social norms you’re just an echo chamber. You have to spread that health outwards, because we’re all connected at the end of the day - the people we ban don’t go away, we deny them the pressure to rehabilitate when we decide to keep them out of our online platforms. They’re still there in the real world