Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Take a company
Search everything all the employees have said publically
Collect some out of context clips
Exaggerate what they say even out of context
Demand boycotts
No, see, when THEY do it it's called "voting with your wallet". XD
It's not like SBI walks up to Company X and says "Listen! Put a gay gnome in this game or FACE OUR WRATH!" (rolls eyes)
But Company X decides - beforehand - to put the gay gnome Sherlock Gnomes in their game, and THEN they hire Sweet Baby Jesus to write his storyline. They usually get involved in this stuff AFTER these decisions have been made.
No blackmail, no DEI, ESG, LSD, DMT, or THC funds involved, this is the services for which companies hire them as consultants - then they offer their recommendations and advice - THEN the company decides whether to use it or not.
Heh, its amusing really considering most people don't care about SBI that this is the fight they choose
Huge difference. With Valeria, there was an actual murder. Evidence of those murders, and evidence that leads to a certain conclusion to be made. You spend a good chunk of time looking into that evidence, and then finding further evidence which refutes the prior.
You started with a conclusion. No case. No evidence. No justification of your conclusion. Just questions and claims, and asked people to prove it wrong.
To put it simply, Valeria thought they were at the end of a case. I am here, saying we aren't even at the beginning because you haven't even presented a case yet, therefor there is nothing to refute, or even answer.
You can get me to believe what you are saying, but you have to start the case first and not demand a conclusion from me with nothing to go on yet.
Edit: Also, you are ironically proving the point. Your player, in order to prove their claims put in the leg work and provided the evidence of their claim in order to convince others.
Yeah, it's pretty funny how backwards he has that comparison to Valeria. HE is doing exactly what Valeria did: Latching onto the easy answer then demanding everyone else prove him wrong. Only in this case, "proving him wrong" is impossible and he has no real proof that he's right. It's the old Teakettle argument. I say there's a teakettle orbiting somewhere between Earth and Mars. You say there's not. I tell you "Well, then prove me wrong.". Even if you somehow scour every millimeter of space in between Earth and Mars, I could just say, "Well, it's constantly moving, you just missed it."
Yeah, because in spite of the right wingnuts' claims, "Go woke, go broke" is nearly always the opposite of the truth. "Woke" doesn't make up for bad writing, though, so a failure that happens to also be "woke" is cited as proof of their myth. Going fash, however, does tend to cause a project to lose cash. With things like proponants of the agenda of a certain racist movie about child trafficking buying up movie tickets to make their message look more popular and thus attract more real attention ( and no I don't buy that the "sold out" showings with all empty seats was a computer glitch ).
It's coming back again like a spider monkey