安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
They are simply wrong.
what do you mean "a breed"?
is this some sort of ism?
Different people definitely have different opinions and experiences.
Furthermore, their worldview, including their self-image, is largely based on fictions and denial and so it is extremely unstable. They have to defend it with all their might in order for it to not collapse. They literally can't deal with other views/opinions, because anything other than reaffirmation is going to threaten their Jenga tower of delusion.
Topic:
it might happen that i disagree with racists and fascists though. Another question would be why the discussion is then oftentimes about certain terms, even if they´re applied correctly. Or why far right people say that they´re the center, but everybody else is left. Or why people say one should talk about the subject, and not about the person - and then proceed to talk about the person. Or why some discussion should be about winning or losing something to begin with, when it´s basically only an exchange of opinions.
Or why it´s okay if one side says something, but not when the other says the same thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgAEWUy5CPQ
Most of those idiots throwing these isms around seem to be the worst of it themselves.
It depends what the subject is.
Usually people disagree with me because of two things :
1. Cultural values are different so priorities are different.
or
2. They are stupid.
Hence why few are willing to take that extra step and instead resort to insults.
Expressions depend on the point of view though... something may sound misogynistic or racist or whatever but perhaps it wasn't meant to be that.
This will prompt the defeated person to try and miscredit the person, rather than the argument, in hope that it will invalid the argument presented.
This is an ancient tactic. It seldom works however.
More reason to call it out as such, if the intent was not racism or misogyny then surely the accused gains to benefit from the criticism in order to not repeat the mistake.