this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
137 points (95.4% liked)
Gaming
19801 readers
178 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not like threatening the writers' kids would have been reasonable either
It would have at least been more logical...
I wouldn't expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who'd threaten kids over a videogame.
No one said you would.
OK, so let's assume that's a good faith literal interpretation.
Let's try it this way.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren't generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.
You're just repeating yourself.
"Logical" is not a binary position. It's a spectrum.
So, not a good faith take then, oh well.
Agreed, not sure how it's relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.
Ah yes "bad faith". Right up there next to the Strawman in "Don't actually have any argument to put forward for $500, Alex".