Quote:
Originally Posted by 3d_glasses
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I thought you'd like to know I understand what you're saying, you seem to be having trouble understanding me. It only took you four some odd comments to back handedly admit we agree and now you sit there accusing me of not wanting to talk about the way to help a disabled person enjoy the game. I said another discussion meaning lets not confuse a disagreement about the controls of a video game with the hope that a game can be enjoyed by the lesser priveleged. We have disagreeing about what constitutes finesse in a game - not that there couldn't be an exception to some control for some person with a disability or did you miss my saying that?
Its pretty low that you would throw some backwards ass shit at me like I don't care deeply about the Black Lives Matter Movement or Women's having to deal with constant sexual harassment because we disagree about controls in a video game.
|
It didn't take me four comments, it took me one reply to you. Go back and read it. What do you interpret "It is what it is" to mean, other than a concession of agreeing to disagree?
You sure do read deeply into things, and add quite a lot that isn't there. Have you considered seeing a therapist? They can help a lot with this sort of anxiety.
I didn't say you didn't care about those things. Given your demonstrated ableism and blindness to privilege, if I had to make a wager, I wouldn't guess that social equity is a top priority for you. But I didn't even suggest that you don't care about those things; I highlighted the trend of privileged people commonly disqualifying the pursuit of equality by always calling it a "separate discussion".
You attacked the notion of having a conversation about the continued accessibility to a game for less abled players, and tried to disqualify the discussion as being irrelevant to the topic of it's unfairness. Those comments are there, and quoted.