I was listing all the bad things Steam does and never mentioned Epic. That’s on you projecting so much.

You used the phrase “which one” a lot. That is incoherent nonsense unless you are talking about at least 2 entities. “Which one” was the second entity?

even if that ain’t the dictionary definition

So not what that word means.

Fascist countries are well known for their spotless record keeping easily accessible to the public.

Right, the US isn’t going to murder you, they’ll just deport you to some other country you’ve never been to and that country will torture and murder you!

How many tourists to Mexico are having problems with cartels vs how many tourists to America are having problems with ICE?

Unexpected trips don’t tend to be fun. Scary trips don’t tend to lead to addiction.

Also, drugs are a lot more expensive than abortion pills, so whomever is putting the drugs in them is losing a lot of money doing so.

pills with something else that could get you addicted.

It’s hard to get addicted to an unknown substance you’ve taken unwillingly and don’t know what it is in order to get another hit.

I’d be more considered about psychos selling literal poison.

I’m sure he had a blackmail list ready to go in order to prevent himself facing consequences. It’s why he got suicided.

Point to where I said that.

Right here: https://lemmy.world/comment/18163814

The same thing Steam did to secure its monopoly.

That’s not what the word monopoly means

No, you were literally saying Epic was better than Steam because Epic is doing the same scummy things but just wasn’t around when Steam started doing it.

I never made any claims as to whether I felt those practices are problematic or not, I just pointed out that they both do it so it’s irrelevant in the comparison.

Epic is worse than Steam because of its aggressively anti-consumer practices like paid exclusives.

Don’t resign, obstruct.

Piracy

If Steam goes down I have no problems torrenting games I’ve already paid for

Imagine being so full of yourself that you think saying nothing has any value.

Fun fact: the term “Stockholm syndrome” originates from a hostage situation in which the authorities did not seem to care about the safety of the hostages at all, they regularly put the hostages in danger and the hostage takers were frequently trying to protect the hostages from the actions of the authorities.
In light of that, the hostages having more empathy towards their captors makes perfect sense. However ignorant people who did not understand the details of the event coined the term “Stockholm syndrome” instead of actually listening to the hostages or trying to understand a different point of view.

Your use of the term feels very appropriate.

Dude can’t even spell “Gamers” and is complaining other people aren’t smart…

Which one killed competition with anti consumer practices in the 2000’s?

Epic has even more anti-consumer practices.

Which one popularised micro transactions?

Does Epic ban micro transactions?

Which one popularised loot boxes and gambling?

None of this available on EGS either?

Which one popularised the current “Sell now, fix later” model

“The service that was around first did these things that the service that came later is also doing, that makes the service that came later better for some reason!”

I can get the same games from the high seas for the same price and not provide Epic with an active account with which to entice investors.

if he can find someone who’s sufficiently stupid, greedy, and/or desperate to take the job (and there always is someone)

I’m not desperate, but if Musk offered me CEO money I’d do it. That amount of money to not have to do any work (just rubber stamp and tell an idiot he’s a genius)? Where do I sign up?

It’s not like people blame Yaccarino for all the stuff that’s been happening on X.

-sees traffic moving down the road with no accidents

“Is this Mad Max?”

your “example” is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical.

This you?

you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person’s fault.

As for:

It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.

Your argument has never mentioned “reasonable speed”. You have been repeatedly saying “slower is safer” and I pointed out how such a mind numbingly simple statement is useless and incorrect. “Reasonable speed” is a reasonable argument, but then the question becomes “what is a reasonable speed?”

Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.

Arguing through absurdity is not bad faith or invalid. The point I was making is that just because the sign next to a road says a certain number that doesn’t magically make that number a “reasonable speed”. It has already been mentioned that politicians will lower speed limits below a “reasonable speed” for the road conditions in order to claim it’s now safer.