I disagree on pretty much every point, but I personally don’t see the problem you’re having with the game. If you don’t like the nudity, that is optional (as in, there is an option for it.) If you’re complaining about the romance, that’s like an entire genre of stories. Heck, softcore porn is also a genre of stories that is exceptionally popular. So, why would removing it for you make up for the loss of potential customers that were gained from it being there, especially since you bought it with it there anyway? Idk, seems like you disproved your own point.

Yeah, I suppose those would. I wouldn’t have thought it, but definitionally, it would be! I mean, heck, some of those are listed by Meriam-Webster! Isn’t language neat? You learn something new every day.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social media

Users create and/or share content, check. Users discuss content, check.

Unless you think something is missing from that definition, Lemmy is social media. It is pseudonymous, but it is still social because of the users.

Make sure you take your dog’s shoes off, too.

No, he did. He just didn’t die houseless :(

Oh we can ___, we’re just required to pay massive amounts of money to a corporate middleman to do it.

Basically America.

Technically, he did get the most votes once. It’s just that electoral votes aren’t representative of the popular vote, which he has never gotten because he is an unlikeable wannabe dictator.

It might alloy into bronzitus if you’re not careful.

Sounds like we shouldn’t cater to closed-minded people then. You can’t change people that don’t want to change, and if they want to be wrong, that’s on them.

Barbie is a decent movie with the message that women are people and to treat them like people and not play things. I wouldn’t even call that your definition of woke. Now, if the movie started calling for women’s hygiene products to be free and had Barbie stealing that shit from Walmart and Target and doling it out to the poor, we can start talking.

Could you define woke?

Can confirm, adjectives go on all the ducks, so you can throw people off. Grrrrrr-een duck.

Yes! The difference between these two types of infinities (the set of non-negative integers and the set of non-negative real numbers) is countability. Basically, our real numbers contain rational numbers, which are countable, and irrational numbers, which are not. Each irrational number is its own infinity, and you can tell this because you cannot write one exactly as a number (it takes an infinite numbers of decimals to write it, otherwise you’ve written a ratio :) ). So, strictly speaking, the irrational numbers are the bigger infinity between the two.

True. Happy holidays was accidentally inclusive, as opposed to it being designed that way. It was just used as another way to say Merry Christmas.

If you can’t break down something, memorizing the answer only teaches you the answer to those problems. Each piece of mathematics is a building block that can be used to help understand another part. You are skipping past the part of why 2+2=4 because it seems forthright and immutable. But, memorizing that means that there may come a time when 2+2 isn’t equal to 4, and without the knowledge of how to get there, could you then solve for 2*3?

This seems silly (and maybe a little abstract), but it’s meant more as an example to show why knowing how to break things down could solve bigger problems later on. Learning multiple ways to solve a problem can be really helpful!

It’s really just meant to show that it can be broken down, not that it is faster (because it isn’t).

Not to be a naysayer, but there ARE techniques for single digit multiplication and addition. In fact, it’s utilizing some basic principles, like the transitive property.

You can always always breakdown mathematics into smaller bits, like 9+8=(9+1)+7=17, or 7*6=(5+2)*6=30+12=42.

You could even do counting! 1+3 => 1…2,3,4 => 4. Or 3*4 => 3,6,9,12 => 12. There’s lots of shortcuts!

If you expect us to take responsibility for our actions, then we’d have to have real solutions, and it’s just easier to complain about things, plus we’d have to arrest a looooooot of war criminals.

Definitionally, you argued.

So, are you suggesting that people aren’t allowed to complain about things, are you suggesting that complaining about things cannot be done in tandom with works that better the lives of trans, or are you suggesting that people that actually want trans people to have better lives don’t get to complain about things? Because every one of those implications are dumb as shit, especially if you have any historical knowledge of civil rights movements.

No, instead you’ve taken a stance historically used to oppress civil rights movements, using a false dilemma to essentially proport that one cannot talk about the issue because that is wasting time not doing some unknown thing about it.

And by virtue of your own post, why are you arguing with people about people arguing instead of helping trans people get the rights they deserve?

Authoritarianism and enforced heirarchical structures (as well as support for such regimes) are very much a right-wing philosophy. They also espouse the same “both sides” philosophy that conservatives push (which is a justification for maintaining the status quo, and another right-wing position.)

Because people other than the two arguing read that and learn things. If someone states factually wrong or hurtful information about, say, trans people, I would rather they be corrected than someone think that trans people are anything other than human beings being human beings from that prior comment.