安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
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.