CW

TIL CW is content warning.

https://www.eurogamer.net/nintendo-and-accessories-manufacturer-genki-settles-switch-2-trademark-infringement-lawsuit

Genki is now also prohibited from using approximations such as ‘Glitch’, ‘Glitch 2’, ‘Genki Direct’ and ‘Genki Indirect’ when promoting its own products, with these of course being very close to Nintendo’s own Switch and Nintendo Direct-related branding.

The accessories manufacturer is also no longer able to use colour schemes in any of its products or packaging which are “confusingly or substantially” similar to Nintendo’s. The court document states: “Namely, red and white, red and blue, green and pink, blue and yellow, purple and orange, pink and yellow, and purple and green.”

Wow, the idea that a court would allow a company to have powers over something that should be in the public domain like color is bizarre.

Also, I’m glad I asked, because I thought pulling a Nintendo might have been a reference to a sex thing and I couldn’t find it on Urban Dictionary.

What do you mean by pulling a Nintendo?

Exactly, they should! What they’re doing instead is using violence on people outside their in-group.

The fascists are trying to kill people. In response your argument proposes what is best described as a kind of Stockholm syndrome. But instead of a empathy for captors your argument would have victims have empathy for their murderers. Like some kind of extreme form of rape culture. It’s disgusting in my opinion.

Neither are the people celebrating here, according to this logic. See the issue?

Those tolerant people are feeling empathy for each other regardless of their group. They are even expressing empathy for Charlie Kirk’s children. So they are following the social contract where as the fascists are not.

Apparently they are not, as exemplified by celebration of violence here.

Those who break the peace treaty are not protected by it. The fascists broke the peace treaty so the fascists are not protected by it.

They feel empathy for the intolerant

The users in this thread are still tolerant of each other, regardless of group. So the empathy they feel towards each other is for tolerant people of different groups.

, and dislike the emphatic.

Fascists want to kill out groups. Fascists are practicing parochial empathy if even that. Your argument seems to have no grasp of what empathy is or how to practice it in a healthy or useful way so it is not compelling. edit: typo

You see the issue with this parochial approach to empathy?

Tolerant people in groups whether that is by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender are still feeling empathy for tolerant people outside their groups. So people practicing tolerance as a peace treaty are still practicing empathy not parochial empathy.

Do you see the problem with using a straw man to argue? Refuting your argument is trivial.

That’s what most here are doing.

Considering this acts in accordance with self-preservation this is a rational and useful decision to have made.

Should everyone in this group who celebrates breaking of the social contract be fair game for reprisal?

Charlie Kirk and the other fascists he was a mouth piece for have already broken the social contract with their fascist takeover of the United States. This fascists administration goal is to around up minority groups into death camps and a pollute the planet as much as possible with coal powered ‘freedom cities’. The fascist chose to break the peace treaty and so they are no longer protected by it.

The intolerant group has already decided those being tolerant are fair game before this. The fascists already wanted to kill people. We knew this before the election. They were completely open with what they wanted to do. Now tolerant people have to work together with people outside their groups to defend themselves against intolerant fascists. This is a clear cut example of real empathy.

You are describing parochial empathy, with the caveat that somehow you think it’s different when you do it.

No parochial empathy is when an in-group only has empathy for the in-group and none for any out-groups.

The resolution to the paradox of tolerance does not require individuals in a group to only experience empathy for other individuals in their group.

Instead members of groups that adhere to the social contract or peace treaty of tolerance all feel empathy for each other.

Only when an individual, individuals, or a group of people break the social contract or peace treaty are they no longer protected by it. Every individual in the groups still being tolerant still feel empathy for each other across group lines.

This is so the groups that practice tolerance can defend themselves from a group that has chosen to be intolerant. Such as the Nazis killing minority groups in WWII.

If you’re going to be doing this what style guide are you using? Why did you choose that one? Why is it the most useful option? You’ve made an entire account about enforcing apostrophe usage but don’t have any sources or explanation to back it up on your bio.

I thought it would be fun to try 90’s since that looks more appealing than '90s. We don’t use this ’ to cut off preceding symbols in anything other than 'twas which also looks wrong.

Then I thought It was useful that you were doing this because imposing whatever the current most used trend for apostrophes would help facilitate communication between the greatest number of English readers and writers. It would be democratic even.

Then I realized I had no idea what the current most used trend for apostrophes even was and without any sources no way of knowing if your style was anything resembling that. (I like 90s now btw.)

So then I looked up who even made grammar anyway and it turns out a lot of people but a couple individuals stand out.

https://www.wordgenius.com/who-actually-created-all-these-grammar-rules/Xr0yWBPAJQAG8w-n

The First Grammarian

Modern English grammar can be traced back to William Bullokar, a printer from the 16th century. Back in 1586, Bullokar wrote the Pamphlet for Grammar, which we now know as the first English grammar resource. His grammar resource compared English to Latin. He also created a phonetic 40-letter English alphabet, addressing the 40 different phonetic sounds he identified. His goal was to increase literacy in England and make it easier for foreigners to learn the language.

Robert Lowth is one of the more notable grammarians who built upon Bullokar’s work. He wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar in the late 18th century, and this book formed the groundwork for many other grammarians as they standardized English grammar.

Lowth’s book became known as one of the first examples of prescriptive grammar, or one establishing the rules for how grammar should be used. By contrast, descriptive grammar simply explains how people actually use grammar.

Creating a System

Lowth wasn’t the only one who tried to standardize grammar. Many others preceded him and many more followed. British schoolmistress Ann Fisher was the first published female grammarian and an early user of an all-purpose pronoun. She wrote A New Grammar in 1745, shortly before Lowth’s work came on the scene, and her book was released in 30 editions over 50 years. Fisher’s work was one of the first to detail modern grammar practices, many of which are still in use today.

That all being said, what’s the style guide or grammar reference book every English writer on lemmy should refer to?

Wrong to who? You?

*in the 90’s

This is meaningless gatekeeping imposed by older people on younger people. If you were a child in the 90’s you were a 90’s kid. The validity of your lived experience doesn’t depend on your current ability.

By OP’s reasoning people who no longer remember their childhood no longer count as a kid for their decade. Eventually everyone will be dead and then according to the OP no one will have lived either.

I remember watching Power Rangers and Barney in the 90’s which I was born. Take that meaningless distinction.

I know that. Read the comment section. There is a user arguing against shutting down the government on the basis of a third option that the user cannot give in any detail. We need to be pushing the Democrats for a shutdown because they will not do it on their own. The last thing we need is to give Democrats an out when we do not have a third option.

No shit. Look at what is being argued in this comment section. We need the Democrats to shutdown the government. A user is determined to push a third option instead that they cannot list. The last thing we need is for people to assume there is a third option when we don’t have one. edit: typos

This is your reminder that we are in a make a deal or shut down situation because of how the Constitution requires the Democrats to have a majority of votes to do anything. Which in theory is how things should work in a majority rule democracy. edit: typo

Without the shutdown Democrats wouldn’t have any leverage right now. Which isn’t great, but is better than nothing for fighting fascism. It would have been better if Democrats had been socialists from the get go and gotten rid of the debt ceiling when they had power but they weren’t and they didn’t.

If you have a third option please share it. And make sure you’re getting fresh air in your building.

Again with the false dichotomy. I can be against allowing a shutdown and against appeasing the fascists at the same time.

No you cannot and still be providing a logically consistent argument. Those positions are mutually exclusive.

Those two are NOT the only options are pretending otherwise is playing into the hands of fascists and other demagogues such as Schumer.

There are no mechanisms in the Constitution for the minority party to enact meaningful change or to obstruct that do not involve shutting down the government.

What are the other options?

Some ABSOLUTELY do.

They are a tiny minority that does not include Trump.

Again, they’re not unanimous. The Freedumb Caucus and other factions always defect at first.

They defect in favor of a shutdown.

Again, tell that to the people who might survive if a third option is accomplished.

What third option?

If they can’t do anything while in the minority, why show up to work at all? Why do we keep paying them if they’re literally powerless and thus useless?

Exactly. Hence a government shutdown.

The answer is that they’re NOT anywhere near as powerless as you and they pretend. They have ways of subverting or at least delaying the whole absurd procedure if they’re willing to.

Yes. With a government shutdown.

Anyway, I’ve said what needs to be said and you’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re not going to understand it no matter how many times I repeat myself and/or rephrase things, so we’re done here. Have the day you deserve.

Open your windows. You may have carbon monoxide poisoning.

You’re literally doing what you are accusing me of doing with all that nonsense I didn’t quote. Like a Republican. It’s a blatantly clear cut situation. If you have a third option to this situation speak up! Say what that third option is. That’s how it’s obvious you’re the one arguing in bad faith here or have carbon monoxide poisoning. edit: typo

If you knew a third option you could have listed it!

Couldn’t agree more.

Couldn’t disagree more.

You’re doing the Patrick Star and Man Ray meme to me right now.

Correct. There’s also no world where a government shutdown is a good thing.

There is in a world where a person says ‘Absolutely’ to:

The fascists are going to try to kill us all whether we stand up to them or not

Absolutely.

These are mutually exclusive positions given what we are discussing. Your argument at the same time acknowledging that the fascists present the same danger regardless of our level of resistance and yet arguing that there is some how more danger if we resist. You’re argument contains a glaring logical fallacy and thus is not compelling in any capacity. Your argument is a logically invalid position for this discussion.

Does your room contain any windows?

Democrats have tools at their disposal to gum up the machine and sway public opinion until they find a way to avert a shutdown without greenlighting something even worse. Using those tools is one of the most important parts of their job.

Incorrect. Passing legislation in the US requires control of both houses of Congress and the executive branch or two-thirds of both houses of Congress. There are no other meaningful tools besides a government shutdown to gum up the works. And people are sick of performative action from the Democrats.

Full stop. You aren’t making sense. So I’m left with either you’re trolling me and the rest of us for fun or you’re suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning. For the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt and your health I’m going to assume it’s the latter, so the carbon monoxide poisoning.

Because the parts of the government exempted just so happens to be the only parts that the fascists always want to fund.

So? The Democrats don’t have the power to do anything about that so it isn’t relevant.

kill even MORE people.

So you’re ok with some people dying.

That’s what I’M asking!

No you’re trying to justify killing a few of us now, so the rest of us can wait out fascism.

Yes and no: massive fundamental reform of the government into something befitting today’s society is needed to achieve that goal.

This is laughably unattainable with the current Congress. We’ll need to flip the Supreme Court with multiple consecutive presidential elections to even be able to start taking swings at that. We’re never getting there if Democrats vote for Republican spending cuts with each continuing resolution.

They HAVE done it. Several times. That’s why they came up with this whole farce to begin with.

Not in 2025 with this presidential administration and Congress. Which are the only ones that are relevant to this discussion.

Not necessarily, no. The Freedumb Caucus usually holds the whole thing hostage to make whatever abomination the leadership suggests even WORSE.

They definitely do. They could all not vote on a bill if there goal was a government shutdown. They have the majority in both houses. And Trump could veto any bill if he wanted.

some don’t

Yeah, the majority that align with Trump on everything as often as humanly possible.

Whether the government shuts down or not

Then why not shut it down.

Because the parts of the government exempted just so happens to be the only parts that the fascists always want to fund.

Sounds like they’ve got everything they need either way. If they’re so good at spinning why not shut it down. Because people are turning against them in town halls all across the country. They know there are limits to what even they can get away with. That’s why they delayed portions of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ until after the midterms.

…are you new? 99% of the times that the Dem leadership ever uses what leverage they have effectively, it’s to benefit their owner donors, not regular people who need it the most.

What is going on here? I brought up that Schumer is never going to allow a government shutdown. You’re trying to argue that we’re risking lives by doing a shutdown when that’s what you’re arguing for by arguing against a shutdown. I’m surprised you don’t like Schumer since he’s doing exactly what you think is best. If I didn’t know better I would say you were trolling. But I’ve never seen a troll hold mutually exclusive positions in their heads let alone post them in the same comment before. If you know Schumer is bad for not doing a shutdown why do you also think shutdowns are bad? Surely either Schumer is correct and at least somewhat good for opposing a shutdown or bad for opposing it.

Is the ventilation in your building okay? Carbon monoxide poisoning is no joke.

Yes.

A socialist government would be cool.

Which playing their game and shutting down the government doesn’t do. Never has, never will.

So what’s all this stuff from you about not liking Schumer then? It boggles my mind that you can hold such opposing takes at the same time. Republicans do not want a shutdown. Otherwise they would have shutdown the government since they have the votes to do it. Therefore it is leverage.

Big Joni Ernst energy 🙄

Not standing up to the fascists with the government shutdown is going to get some people killed now and then all of us killed later.

Again, I suggested no such thing, nor would I ever.

You’re doing it right now. It’s not a strawman or a false dichotomy, Democrats have one lever to pull as the minority party and it’s the government shutdown.

Right back at you, chief.

STOP IT. What the actual fuck is going on? Stop kissing fascist ass. The opportunity to stop these deaths was in the 2024 election. Did you think there was a way to passively resist fascism meaningfully without people dying? We either stand up and fight or don’t. Either way the fascists try to kill us now or later. There isn’t a point later when suddenly the fascists are gone without any form of meaningful, impactful, useful resistance. edit: typos