FunctionFn

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago

The point of the distinction in that situation is that no one thinks your car is actually alive and capable of lying to you. The language distinction when describing an obviously inanimate object isn't important because there is no chance for confusion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Destiny 2's been a real roller coaster. Forsaken was the best it ever was, so you haven't missed much imo.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Both Destiny and Destiny 2 had really poor launches. Then they cleaned up their act and we're very successful and had thriving playerbases. Light fall and this past year notwithstanding...

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Huh, I wonder why people holding that opinion would be on Lemmy...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the US (which I'm assuming you're referring to, since the meme mentions the GOP), There is absolutely not a background check performed for every firearm purchase. That's one of many restrictions people reasonably want placed on guns. Only 17 states have a universal requirement for gun sales. The federal law "requiring" background checks only applies to federally licensed sales. Private sales, gun shows, etc. allow for sale of guns with no background check, and often bypass age restrictions as well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I still don't understand how they would trust self-reported numbers but we'll see.

This is just how this stuff works. Unity already operates with some self-reporting reliance (although afaik they don't even require a report on the personal license), since the different tiers have a maximum revenue cap before you must upgrade. Software audits are a thing, and trying to skirt them by lying on your numbers is an easy way to get fined or sued.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm only responding to the assertion that asking "what cis women think about playing trans women" is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people.

But I think this part is where the disconnect is happening. Before this decision, cis women and trans women were both components of women's chess. The act of conferring with only a subset of that group implies that the other does not fall into that category. Relying only on the majority group's opinion on the status of the minority group is itself an assumption that one of the groups inherently belongs less than the other.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Nah, I don't buy it. The assumption with this line of thinking is that trans women don't inherently belong to that class of participation. The majority of a group (cis women) do not get to unilaterally decide who is/is not a part of the greater group (women).

If someone proposed a restricted class limited to PoC, it would be entirely appropriate to ask PoC what they think about the proposal.

But following this analogy through, you're not asking all PoC. You're asking the majority of the subset (for example, black participants) whether a minority of the subset (for example, Asian participants) should be allowed to participate or not.

In this case, the organizers of these tournaments are picking and choosing their own definitions for who qualify as "women" and listening only to those opinions. The decision is already made, and pointing to the remainder to justify the decision is working backwards from that conclusion.