this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
739 points (90.5% liked)

Games

16690 readers
1000 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its funny how you credit the invisible hand of free market forces to keep things fair but acknowledge everywhere else that the only thing that actually intervenes to promote fairness is the FTC as government regulatory body.

If we could drop the obvious bullshit romanticism of capitalism this would be a mostly accurate post.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Found the tankie lol

Unregulated capitalism doesn't work. I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that it does. The FTC isn't the only thing keeping the market fair, the free market does that on its own. When a company does a shitty thing, they lose customers and die. That's true in pretty much every market in the real world, except for a few problematic ones where there are bad actors trying to cheat the system.

[–] Imotali@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anti-capitalist ≠ tankie

In fact Communist ≠ tankie

Tankies are specifically defenders of Marxist-Leninist communism and their one party state rule (which is ironically not communism, it's Stalinism which is a form of autocratic socialism)

[–] gamer@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sure, but

  • Lemmy == Lots of tankies
  • Tankies == Anticapitalist

So I operate on the assumption that anticapitalist people on Lemmy are tankies. It's not true in all cases ofc, but without more info, I think that's a safe default.

That dude calling my post "bullshit romanticism of capitalism" gives a bit more confidence that they're a tankie with a strong case of grassphobia.

[–] Imotali@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Lemmy is not full of tankies, yours truly a communist.

And your post was free market romanticism.

[–] weeahnn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but

  • Beer == Germans
  • Germans == Fascists

So I operate on the assumption that German people on Lemmy are Fascists. It’s not true in all cases ofc, but without more info, I think that’s a safe default.

And before you call my flawless reasoning stupid... I don't really have anything to say.

[–] gamer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

logic error on line 2: Beer == Germans

Beer does not equate to Germans, rather Germans equate to Beer. If we fix that error, then it doesn't fit the original pattern:

  • Germans == Beer
  • Germans == Fascists

That would only work if Beer == Fascists, which of course is not true.

Also, wrong does not equal stupid, rather stupid equals wrong. Which is to say, you comment is wrong, but not necessarily stupid.

[–] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Great example of oversimplification and reaching for conclusions that reinforce your bias. An effective way to shield yourself from valid criticism or any self reflection is to automatically discredit the person who brings it to your attention, whether its true or not is of little importance right?

[–] Seasm0ke@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Plenty of people claim that it does. That is the entire ideological premise you invoke with the free market fetishism (laissez faire, Chicagoan school, Austrian economics) the "free market" means free to exploit consumers, not free to choose. Consumers do not have enough capital to afford any meaningful check against corporate snake oil. This over simplistic narrative youre spinning doesn't match up with the track record.

Also, you don't have to be an authoritarian communist to know that the free market is a crock of shit. Anybody with the ability to look at the past few hundred years would know Friedman hayek rothbard and most all libertarians are absolutely full of shit or just plain misguided