So, I had a excellent day hanging out with a buddy of mine (whom sadly is a liberal, but still a good guy for the most part), and he came at me with a conversation where he gives passes at bad video game developers who get closed down because he makes an argument that has ‘plausible deniability’ for their closure rather than openly admitting they were closed down due to bad choices and bad behaviors.
Now this argument came about before because he was denying and malicious tampering with localized translations for anime/video games. Again, he branches out his argument as “it’s not a 1:1 ratio and it’s made to translate easier for Americans” when we all see localizers flaunting their language changing to fit their agenda, but because I had don’t have all the resources, he faults to “how do you know?”
Well see, this is where ignorance of the uneducated liberal becomes their defense mechanism. I pointed out because these localizers and developers openly admitted it and the 20 other people correcting them and are more experienced in both fields have called them out online, multiple times.
He goes on the ignorance statement “how do you know?” Well obviously I know because I actually pay attention: Rev Says Desu, Hero Hei, clownfish TV, and G+G of course and the list goes on of us recounting these misbehaviors in the industry.
Plausible Deniability is a liberals most annoying tactic because instead of having an actual argument, they question your argument. A very weak but annoying tactic to push you to your limit.
I know because I have two eyes and a brain, and I’m well informed. That’s enough for me. The problem here is my buddy is playing dumb which is annoying.
He thinks he knows best when, in fact, we all know that volition failed due to being crappy developers that didn’t give gamers what they wanted and we know translators are mistranslating because they hate the fans and flaunt mistranslations online daily.
It’s actually quite shocking that liberals use “ignorance” as an argument rather than having an actual argument. Sure he added because Microsoft acquired companies and shut them down after a game. Sadly that doesn’t disprove my argument since Microsoft acquired companies all the time and they don’t immediately go to shutting them down.
Sadly this debate ended before it could come to a conclusion, but my thoughts on this behavior is that this mannerism of argument seems to be a tactic some liberals are using and if you want to debunk them, show them the evidence or shut them down and ask, how do you know it’s not?
They might say: “oh because this happens often because this reason” or they’ll compare a similar situation with a different outcome. All in all, I see this being rather childish and annoying to deal with on an intellectual level because it has no substance to a conversation.
I’m still friends with my liberal friend because he’s my buddy and I respect him for giving me an opposing arguments. It keeps me moving and thinking and really when I have a challenge from a friend, I know I can push our conversations open to the limit and we can still be buddies afterwards. I think that’s a true friendship and honestly, if you can’t surround yourself with people you can disagree, how can you expect to handle times where you will disagree? No one agrees 100% of the time and I respect the hell out of people who can still be friends after disagreeing.
.
