Senal

If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don’t) that would be a success

That's phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use "on the spectrum" is to purposely leave out the word autism.

If that's what you mean then i disagree, It's only my own anecdotal experience, but it's still at least one instance where what you are possibly suggesting is not true.

Coming from a "my interpretation is the only interpretation" viewpoint is an easy way to get confusing input from the world, at least in my personal experience.

It’s not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not.

I also disagree with this, offense is inherently subjective, I'd put good money on me not being the only person who thinks that.

I will however concede that "choose" was a bad choice of word on my part, as it's not always as simple as "choosing".

I am aware that people don’t usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn’t change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.

See my answer above about subjective opinion vs objective fact.

But it being offensive to you, regardless of intent, i can understand, which is what i was trying to address with :

You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.

I phrased that poorly, i think it would be better phrased as :

If you find the phrase itself offensive regardless of intent, you can let people know of your opinion, but you should probably at least try to understand the intent behind it so you can more accurately assess the social context and act accordingly.

for example, if you know they don't intend to be offensive and you react with hostility, that's a valid choice, but it does come with consequences, knowing about the potential consequences beforehand means you can better prepare yourself.

I don't personally consider this a language issue as much as a people issue.

IIRC the current evaluation methodologies are heavily tied to the idea of a spectrum of traits, each with their own scale.

As you say, there are other spectrum diagnoses including autism, so "on the spectrum" is technically correct.

Which is why i consider the issue you seem to be describing as a person issue, not a language one.

A person using a descriptor or label with the intention of being an arsehole could just as easily use a different word or phrase.

Using something that isn't inherently considered offensive however, gives them some plausible deniability.

You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.

A worldwide revolution in which everyone unites against the "ruling class" isn't a viable alternative in and of itself, that's like saying "world peace".

An example of an alternative would be something which could fill in the blank in this sentence and make sense.

"Don't boycott products/companies, that isn't how you achieve your goal, what you should be doing is "

This is not a war between nations but a war between class

The issue i have with this isn't that it's a marxist cliche (i'll take your word on that, I've no idea) it's that it presents a false dichotomy in which a class war and a national war can't both be occurring at the same time.

I suspect more people than you think realise this is a potential outcome.

Assuming it boils over before there is another election (also assuming that's a thing that happens), military action is 100% a playable card.

It's a toddler with a nuclear tantrum button.

It's honestly not that much different in type than most nuclear powered nations.

The difference is "absolute last resort, and only maybe then" vs "they won't let me annex Greenland and are being mean to me"

Hyperbolic ofc, but illustrative.

What are the reasonable good alternatives though?

a sequel is in the works : https://www.remedygames.com/games/control-2

Hah, 3 whole comments, all of them nuts.

Another bot for the blocklist.

ah, my bad, that was two different responses, only the first line was directed at you.

i've edited the response to be clearer.

edit: for clarity

That's a lot of assumptions about the poster but I can see how you got there.

Below is a response to the idea of supremacy in general, not a response to @chuckleslord@lemmy.world

That seems like a particularly stupid and relatively indefensible hill to die on, but I suppose if you are going to plant a supremacist flag, you haven't really used well reasoned arguments to get there in the first place.

Why not just go with "I disagree with them to such a degree that I wish them and any like them, dead" ?

No need to base it on utterly and stupidly false claims.

how did you get to supremacist from that? genuine question

It's similar in that you presented a position that was not backed up by a reasonable interpretation of the data you also provided.

What you did was different, in that is was a brief misunderstanding of the wording rather than a fundamental misunderstanding of causation and correlation.

it didn't seem defensive as much as dismissive.

Honestly i could have just been reading tone in your response that wasn't there, i get that wrong more often than i would like, if so i apologise.

The gist you actually provided was "you are doing a bad thing and I'm disappointed in you, smh" and then proceeded to do something very similar followed by a non-apology.

I actually agree with your point but it's still a shitty way to do it.

That's exactly my point, you are taking the stance that people didn't buy alan wake because it wasn't on steam, to a degree that's true, i'm saying that i think a larger proportion didn't buy it specifically because it was on EGS.

If it were released as a game you could buy and play sans-platform, then i'd agree with you. It'd certainly see less sales than a steam release, because steam is where everyone is.

My stance is basically if you remove steam entirely, Standalone Sales > EGS. Add steam back in and you get Steam > Standalone > EGS

Think in terms of food, you're basically saying the it's the fault of the 3.5 star monopolistic countrywide chain fast food place that nobody want's to eat at the recently health-inspection-failing 1 star food-poisoning cafe.

Is there a monopoly, sure, is the competition so bad people avoid it regardless of the monopoly, also yes.

If you were using something like GOG as an example, i'd fully agree with you, but EGS has seemingly infinite funds and they still managed to release something so bad nobody wants to use it, even for "free" games.

It's not even just the platform, epic as a company have a reputation, so they have to also overcome that, which they have not.

That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by

Historically there's been no need to be worried, generally, i agree that's not ideal, but again name a viable comparable alternative.

even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.

You mean as opposed to the company that actually lost a class action regarding loot boxes in their game targeted at children?

You aren't even wrong about this but "People don't buy games from this company who famously lost a lawsuit regarding gambling targeted at kids because this other company who also do sketchy kids gambling things are ..better at PR?" isn't a convincing argument.

Everyone should be better at this, but they aren't.