• No_Change_Just_Money@feddit.de
    612·
    5 months ago

    Unrealistic: in the real version, no awnser would be declared as fact. Even if one is clearly wrong the awnser will always be:

    “It is important that we listen to both sides”

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.netEnglish
          3·
          5 months ago

          There’s a few variations, but the one I’m most familiar with is like go fish, except you don’t have to be honest if you have the card someone else asks for. I’ve played versions done with trivia, though where you have to determine if the answer given is real or bullshit (which would be more likely to turn into a game show). I’ve only done the latter like twice and I was drunk at the time so I don’t remember the exact rules. 🤣

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            1·
            5 months ago

            There’s a few variations, but the one I’m most familiar with is like go fish, except you don’t have to be honest if you have the card someone else asks for.

            The version of this I’m used to involved starting at 2 and counting up, and having to claim and play some number of that card whether you have it or not. If another player thinks it’s a bluff they call you out and if you were bluffing you have to take the discard pile, otherwise they have to take the discard pile. First player out of cards wins. So first player has to play 2s, second player has to play 3s, etc.

            I’ve played versions done with trivia, though where you have to determine if the answer given is real or bullshit (which would be more likely to turn into a game show).

            That’s basically what the game show is - a few different games that are each a variation on a quiz show in which the expectation is that players can lie and other players have to call them out on it. Catching a lie benefits the accuser and penalizes the liar, false accusations penalize the accuser.

    • Zacryon@lemmy.wtf
      22·
      5 months ago

      Not just republicans / politically right-wing oriented folks. From my experience you encounter this everywhere where people haven’t learnt how to have a civilised discussion. An important part of this is the ability to self-reflect and distinguish emotions from opinions from facts. Humans are emotional beings in their core and therefore the most are fallible. It’s only natural to resort to an emotionally driven and often stubborn defence mode if one encounters a contrary opinion. Even more so if that opinion is expressed in an emotionally loaded manner. It’s unfortunately a very counter-productive human behaviour.

      And we have that a lot on the internet. Sadly.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        6·
        5 months ago

        Not only right wing, but mostly right wing. The left isn’t the side mostly denying the science of climate change, or the medical consensus of vaccines and gender reassignment therapy.