230
'If you can’t show your game to the world without fearing it’ll be cloned, something’s broken' says Moonlighter studio on its canceled demo (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 23 hours ago by to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -16 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

Sure… so let’s include Tetris. Now, how does your ONE game stack up against the rest?

Facebook kid, everything in your entire wold that you e hit is the product of capitalism. But please… continue the manufactured outrage. It’s funny!

Oh and by the way:

March 2nd 2026

And the Guinness Book of Records also disagrees with you.

But either way, nothing is going to stop your little ball-fisted feverish rage at all things caliptalist while frantically mashing keys on your capitalist designed and built phone, or PC, or tablet to tell me how it is….

So how about you do that now that I have you blocked. That way- you can get that coveted last word in, and I won’t have to waste my time reading it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

    You're making a moving the goalpost fallacy, a false analogy fallacy, a false dilemma/TINA fallacy, a strawman fallacy, a non sequitur fallacy, and an irrelevant premise fallacy, all of them at the same time.

    The fucking point is:

    1. Capitalism is being forced into everyone and if anyone dares to refuse it and try something different, they're fucking destroying these people.
    2. That one system is the only one we know and it looks like if it were successful, it doesn't mean that it's succesful and good.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

    For anybody else reading this, this fallacy is called "moving the goalpost".

    One could also argue for "motte and bailey", but that's less clear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    Not really a motte and bailey I don't think, motte and bailey requires 2 positions one untenable and one irrefutable, in this case he just got provided evidence then changed his standard for being proven wrong which is 100% moving the goalpost.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    Well, what one could argue is that "Tetris isn't number one" was the untenable position, and "capitalism has sold more overall" was the irrefutable one.

    Oh well, the 2 fallacies are very similar with a big overlap, but if I may summarize it down to the point that I find most important:

    If someone is proven wrong and they don't take full responsibility for that (e.g. by trying to quickly push the discussion somewhere else where they're not wrong), talking to them won't lead you to the truth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 hours ago

    I heard a good argument for it that you can still learn something from it and it also teaches you how to argue against people who are being bad faith, but you also have to be aware that they're doing it. Though generally yeah most of the time it's going to be boxing with ghosts xp

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent