Vote however you want in the primary, get the tantrums and obstinence out of your system. If you don’t vote Biden in the general, you’re absolutely complicit.
Agreed, people’s lives are on the line. Republicans have made it very clear they intend to kill more women, lgbtqia people, black people, and other minorities if they regain power.
If you’re calling the righteous indignation that is the response to Biden enabling a genocide a “tantrum”, you’re doing genocide apologia. If you ever wondered what you’d be doing during the Holocaust, you’re doing it right now.
I’m calling refusing to vote for the only candidate in the race standing between us a fascist dictatorship because his politics don’t perfectly line up with your sensibilities a tantrum, and one which plays games with the future of American democracy.
If you have problems with Biden, by all means vote someone else in the primary. If you don’t show up to vote for him in November, you’re holding the door open for fascism, just as surely as the most dyed in the wool MAGA idiot.
Again, if you have more contempt for the people protesting the genocide than the ones perpetrating it, you’re doing genocide apologia. If you’re spending more time bitching about righteous protests, maybe you should ask yourself why.
Biden could make it very easy to vote for him. The anger and protests didn’t come from nowhere. If he fails at his job so poorly that other left-leaning people don’t want to vote for him, that’s on him, not the voters.
I have contempt for anyone refusing to stand up to fascism because the person who can stop it doesn’t perfectly fit their political views. Biden already has made it very easy to vote for him - he’s not Donald Trump. If that’s not enough for you, you’re part of the problem.
I have contempt for anyone refusing to stand up to fascism
And yet… you’re out here playing defense for a perpetrator of genocide who is currently licking the boot of the leader of a fascist ethnostate. The problem is weak-willed liberals that make it easy for fascists.
No, there is one fascist threatening to take power in the United States, and you’re offering support for him by attacking the one person who can stand in his way. You think Trump will be any better for the people of Palestine? Neither of the two candidates for president are going to waver in supporting Israel, using that a an excuse to not vote for Biden in the general is disingenuous and makes you as complicit as any other MAGA supporter.
If “attacking” means supporting anti-genocide protests, then sure, buddy. Imagine being okay with genocide.
Obviously Trump will be as bad or worse for the Palestinians. The problem is that Biden is the one doing it now, when there is this much at stake. Ignoring the whole “Biden is doing a genocide” thing, which you shouldn’t, he’s making it difficult for people to want to turn up to vote for him. That is entirely his fault. As it turns out, people don’t like genocide. Too fucking bad.
Also, I like how fascism, as long as it’s outside of the US, is totally fine with you.
Biden is not “doing a genocide” that pure bullshit. At most, he’s enabling a genocide by supporting Israel, something American presidents have done since ever since Israel became a nation. You bitch and moan all you like, I couldn’t care less. You vote for Biden in the general, or you’re complicit in fascism. Again, vote how you like in the primaries, get it all out of your system, but come November, it’s time to put on your big kid pants and vote for the one person who can stop a fascist takeover here in America. If you’re not willing to turn out for Biden then, it’s entirely on you, and you’re as guilty as those who vote for him.
Thanks for confirming that you’re a proud genocide defender.
I guess we’ll see how doing nothing but defending genocide until the general elections turns out. Surely it’ll have a better outcome than acknowledging the fact that enabling genocide (and thereby, doing genocide) is not acceptable and having Biden change course on that. I’m not confident that defending genocide will win people that are anti-genocide or otherwise apathetic to voting over.
You’re defending genocide, and anyone that isn’t in favor of the genocide can see that. We’re going in circles, which, I think, might be representative of the broader strategy of telling people to “suck it up, the genocide is the best we’re going to get”, so I’ll leave you to ponder that.
They’re trying their best. A lot of these folks online are concern trolls, either Republicans or Russian agents posing as concerned leftists to diminish support for Biden in an effort to get Trump elected, it’s the same playbook as the last couple elections. Some of them though are idiots playing right into their hands.
Hmmm, I wonder why Lemmy is flooded with anti-biden propoganda. Its almost as if certain rich people have a financial incentive to get certain politicians elected
Why are you putting on a Tucker Carlson JAQing off voice and spouting ad hominem conspiracy theory attack.
There’s one dude who clearly hates Biden but most of the articles they post are still from neutral reputable sources - this is an important article to discuss.
““I’ve come to realize,” wrote Appel, “that euthanasia in Canada represents the cynical endgame of social provisioning with the brutal logic of late-stage capitalism — we’ll starve you of the funding you need to live a dignified life [. . .] and if you don’t like it, why don’t you just kill yourself?””
This is why Canadians need to talk about this stuff. Some MAiD recipients are being driven to suicide by an underfunded and ignored social safety net. That’s horrible. Our society is rich enough that we should be able to provide a decent quality of life to people with disabilities.
We have a national belief that we have strong supports for those who need it. That doesn’t seem to be the case.
It’s mostly the same in America - I have an invisible disability or two and it has been next to impossible to get access to the social safety net. The only viable avenue, if you aren’t visibly disabled, is to hire an attorney to work with the system.
That takes an humongous effort that not everyone can sustain on their own.
Why aren’t these systems activated at the point of diagnosis, for example? How many gaps are there in the safety net, really?
IMO I don't ever see them allowing you to stop being a consumer especially not in such a way that makes them look bad. Best can be done is a cop shooting you when you have a mental health crisis. I also could see it being a genuine population crisis if it weren't even more strict/bureaucracy-hell than MAiD.
Then of course, there will always be more people pushing back against programs like this than there ever will be for actually improving living conditions. People just don't want to see or hear any reference to death, continued suffering is a lot more indirect and nebulous and thus ignorable.
It also includes a man whose application “hearing loss,” and whose brother says he was “basically put to death.”
My grandmother was a painter and lost her vision. She was no longer able to do what she loved. In her last several years, every time we’d celebrate her birthday, she’d wonder why she was still alive. You can’t look at MAiD requests simply, because every person has unique reasons that keep them going. Some people can bounce back from severe loss, and some cannot, or choose not to.
While I agree with a lot of points the article is making, I think we need to be calling for more critical review of MAiD applications, and increased oversight, not an outright reversal of the program. Those whom are applying due to lack of social safety nets need to be denied, and, most importantly, helped to find the resources required for them to be able to live a dignified and meaningful life if they so wish.
I don’t think MAiD is the problem - it’s our eroding social safety net that is the issue.
People should be able to end their lives with dignity at a time of their choosing. But they should be provided with the support they need to keep living as comfortably as they want.
“How would these students know how to barricade a door?” Daughtry asked on Newsmax, as he charged that protesters wouldn’t have been capable of measures like locking doors with chains, blocking them with vending machines, or disabling security cameras.
Come the fuck on. I’m too old to have been through school shooter drills, but I’m not too stupid to remember that for the last 20 years this is what kids have been taught to do to deal with psychopaths with guns on campus. They start teaching it in kindergarten! At this point a kid not knowing how to do this stuff is like a kid that doesn’t know to stop, drop, and roll when on fire.
Or they watched too many bad ones where the characters make hella dumb decisions like investigating the spooky sound in the shed full of sharp objects.
They know perfectly well that they’re spewing bullshit.
The facts don’t matter to many people, sadly.
I know plenty of people who would go “heh damn college fucks deserved it” without knowing the first thing about what college or protest, simply “that generation getting what they deserve” is good enough
I’m too old for school shooter drills, but I’m like basically the perfect age for being terrified of velociraptors after watching Jurassic Park in theaters. Not only do I know how to barricade a door, but I also know how to use mirrors to visually trick people into seeing hallways that aren’t there!
It is not a statement designed to convince. It is designed as supporting evidence for a certain mental model, yes, but to a degree that's pretty hard to appreciate unless you've spent some time with this mindset, they are not operating in a world where one person says an argument, and the other person evaluates it critically and decides whether to accept or reject it.
Their model is that if a person in authority says an argument, people "under" that person's authority are obligated to accept it. To evaluate for yourself whether the thing the big NYPD sergeant is firmly telling you is terrorist propaganda, is actually terrorist propaganda or not, is already a subversive act that may be punished by harsh criticism and humiliation at least, and possibly a total expulsion from the social circle or threats to your physical safety.
It's not a good model, but it's the one they operate under, and it works for them as individuals for the most part. So that's what they run with.
People really should get used to keeping an eye out for this idea. It’s the root of so much pettiness and bad faith, and so much good faith effort is put into trying to engage with it.
They don't care about their own long term survival. Their goal is to boost the next quarter and collect their bonuses, and when things go south, they jump ship with their golden parachutes and head to their next executive job.
Right! Can you imagine if Rembrandt had an executive committee behind him dictating what to paint a picture of, then micromanaging brush strokes? That’s the games-for-shareholders model, and it’s fucked. Games are best when made by people who are passionate about the project, not solely about the profit. My big hope now is the publishers learn from the Sony debacle and simply publish the game, be happy with their profit cut, and shut the fuck up.
When someone comissions a painting, they choose the subject and that’s about it. Sure if they didn’t like it they might not pay, but that’s probably already more hands off than any publisher in the games industry.
I wonder… does anyone know how many shares in a company you have to own before you can call-in during shareholder meetings to ask questions? I’m wondering if we could push back against this by “”“asking questions”“” that make majority shareholders aware of the damage companies are doing to their own brands. I know modern capitalism is all about “money today, fuck tomorrow”, but I wonder how many shareholders would be happy knowing that companies would probably make more money if they’d stop cannibalizing studios and franchises.
You know, play into their greed and make convincing arguments about how their decisions are ultimately robbing them of money.
They have a term for that type of shareholder… that I can’t think of right now, sorry. A lot of big companies have things in place so ‘disruptive’ shareholders don’t ruin their plans.
There was a guy a few years ago who spent $40k on Nintendo stock in order to ask about a new F-Zero in a shareholder meeting. They said no at the time but we did get F-Zero 99 last year so maybe he did make an impact.
Ultimately, do they care? Most shareholders are in it for the stock price, this kind of thing might affect it slightly but I doubt it’d shift the needle much
I think being a patient gamer makes more sense nowadays (or at least since PS3/PS4 days) than it did before.
Many games are unfinished, unoptimized or need patches, and all this annoying experience is for the users which I like to call “unpaid beta testers” then when all the needed fixes arrive we can fully enjoy the best experience, at the best price.
And don’t confuse high budget indie studios with AAA game developers
On the other hand, there are a lot of publishers out there who really shouldn't have things called indie when they're involved.
The ones who have struck gold (perhaps multiple times) and are already worth multiple millions, publicly traded or even owned largely by investment firms. Some like this still footing everything on the players (crowdfunding and then early access) and on top of all of that going onto places like Imgur and Reddit and doing unpaid marketing there (doesn't seem great for the actual devs, and then there are things like multiple accounts/sockpuppets/deleting+reposting etc).
And even without the unpaid marketing stuff, a publisher has a lot of ways to screw over developers and/or players usually with the goal of money in some form.
For the most part, it's not hard to find them if they're doing the things I said and you pay attention while they do it. Look at how many titles a publisher has on Steam, see if they have a wikipedia page and if so if there's monetary info involved. Recognizing a dev/publisher might also be part of it.
Also with self-publishing never being easier, some of my skepticism starts there. Another is games seeming somewhat shovelware-esque or like they're trying to ride the wave of some other successful game/trend and that's why targeting consoles early-on is likely important to them for the money.
I originally wasn't, but off the top of my head some of the stronger examples:
Just because something is cute pixels that does not mean it's indie. A good introduction to this is the existing discussion of Dave the Diver and its ties to Nexon. EDIT: Also, lootbox controversy with Nexon and Maplestory
One involving unpaid marketing and crowdfunding/early-access: tinyBuild. ~$473m IPO. Publisher of Hello Neighbor, which also has some controversy around it on quality (also mobile games with micro-transactions, because kid audience). While searching on this, I also saw someone angry about them doing testing on Steam and then a post-launch Epic exclusivity. EDIT: Also one of their games not having all content available on GOG.
The game Roots of Pacha had a license dispute (I do not know the cause, but the dev did end up getting the Steam rights) their original publisher had at least 6 different accounts on Imgur (and they also did the crowdfunding/EA thing too, and no it was not like 1 game per account either and some of those accounts are mysteriously gone now). Same publisher was in the news about controversy over boob physics, and I don't doubt it was either suggested by the CEO for the headlines or just marketing clicks if controversy hadn't have happened.
Even if people don't care about stuff like this enough to stop buying the games, I hope they at least try to not enable or reward blatant self-promotion (particularly the more dipping and questionable practices involved) on the fediverse
The Last of Us, Elden Ring, Baldur’s Gate 3, God of War, Doom. There are plenty of AAA games worth your time and money. Every bit as lovingly crafted as your precious indie darlings.
Maybe stop buying them blindly because you’ve seen a flashy ad for them on TV. There’s plenty of bad AAA games that do all the gameplay competently but have literally nothing to say. Where you can’t feel the touch of the designer at all, and all you can hear in it’s place is a hubbub of design-by-committee noise. The only thing those games have to say is “give me your money”.
Larian Studios who made Baldur’s Gate 3 could technichally be called an Indie dev despite the big budget and employee count. The company is privately owned by its founder and the games are self published.
Notice that other than Baldur’s Gate and Elden Ring, those are pretty old titles at this point. The AAA studios are doing everything they can to make sure those nightmares never happen again.
I would argue elden ring (haven’t played, not my style but heard many good things about it) and bg3 are not AAA studios, they don’t release high budget games frequently, they focus on one genre, and don’t have much (especially large budget titles) outside of that area of focus.
That list is also staggeringly small compared to The list it’s derived from, and I would say whatever list includes those games has a much larger “awful titles” section to go along with it. If anything I would say the games you listed (that are from multi title developers) are the exceptions that proves the “don’t buy AAA titles” rule.
Better labor protection and antitrust laws would help, but the fundamental push is towards maximum exploitation of worker and customer. Power consolidates and then abuse for profit becomes easy.
There are so many viable alternatives. I’ve got an increasingly long list of things I won’t tolerate in games anymore, and I’m nowhere near running out of games to play. The big problem is being able to identify which of those checkboxes are checked or not; PC Gaming Wiki is working for this purpose lately, though it shouldn’t be necessary.
Boycott is a strong word, but I know that I and many, many others decided not to purchase Disco Elysium based on how all that drama went down. And I know I’ll never buy HiFi Rush after the way Microsoft closed that studio while simultaneously lamenting how they wish they had more games like that, because I don’t want to reward bad behaviour.
Same reason I haven’t bought anything from EA in a decade, and I’m really on the fence about supporting Ubisoft at this point too.
Boycotts are only one tool in the box. Legislation should be addressing things like consolidation of power and anti consumer practices.
Unfortunately, the US has one far right party that has many lunatics that don’t believe in government (along with other insanities), and one center-at-best party that does that wield power effectively.
Whereas in a communist economy where people didn’t have to struggle to survive, game developers could focus on improving their craft and telling whatever the funnest story they can think of is. We can already see this on a small scale with the difference between indie passion projects like Hades, and AAAA cash grabs like suicide squad. Imagine if everyone could afford to chase their passion instead of money.
Probably because leftists use “communism” like it’s an immediate and obvious goal, but dismiss any criticism of past efforts to actually get there. It effectively becomes an unquestionable fantasy.
jacobin.com
Oldest