They did all this because they know that the vast majority of the playerbase will never hear about this, and many of those that do will either forget, or simply not care enough to boycott the game. We're in an age of apathy across the board, with so much bad press that any given scandal just fades into the background noise.
Signtist
joined 2 weeks ago
I mean, I understand that this is a metaphor for some instance of "someone thinks x should have y, and is dumb," but I have no idea what specific instance it's trying to poke fun at.
I found it back in the mid-2000's while I was looking for a video game where I could build stuff, similar to legos, so when I played it all I did was make castles and robots and whatever. Maybe you could make minigames for people like they do now, but it didn't seem like it was the main focus, at least from what I had seen back then.
I remember when my nephew first asked if I knew about Roblox. I was so excited to build some stuff with him, until he showed me this crappy superhero fighting simulator. I can't complain too much, since it's basically the new-age version of crappy flash games, but it was still a disappointment.
When I was a kid trying to play flash games on dial-up internet, I found they took almost exactly the same amount of time to load as it took for me to make and eat a sandwich. I ate a lot of sandwiches.
Better in a vacuum, yes, but as /u/disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world pointed out, a huge amount of voters pay absolutely no attention, and just vote for whatever color they've always voted for. Hell, a bunch of people searched "Did Joe Biden drop out?" on election day, because they paid so little attention that they didn't even know about Harris. That's an extreme example, sure, but it's just not a realistic expectation to think people will really think hard about a 3rd party, especially when it won't get a proportionate amount of attention even if it got a huge amount of support, thanks to the billionaire-backed media.
If we don't get someone into one of the 2 established parties, we're crippling ourselves, likely to the point of immediate failure. It would be significantly more viable to change one of the parties by flooding it with new socialist politicians than it would be to build up a new platform based on socialism from the start.
It's no accident, I'm sure. They are better, as they're not helping the killers, but they're nowhere near as good as is necessary to stop them. Pretty much the perfect definition of the average democratic politician these days: you vote for them to stop the killing, but you know that - whether by choice or not - they won't do anything to prevent more deaths when the killers come back into power.
I'm happy we're electing people like Zohran Mamdani, but we're going to need a lot more of them before our leftmost viable party can be considered even a little left. We need politicians that make change, and when the system doesn't let them, they band together with the rest of the population to force it, instead of just complaining about how they wish they could make change but can't. The leaders need to be leading the charge, to battle if necessary.
That's the thing; most democrat politicians hate him nearly as much as the republican ones do, as they're more similar to one another than either is to him. There are a few exceptions, but we're going to need people aligned with Mamdani to be the norm rather than the exception if we want the democratic party to become a real force for good.
I mean, they're trying to say that the terrible colonialism practiced by the European-based American people against the native Americans is happening again in Israel, which is definitely a good point to be made. We're well past the ability to stop the atrocities committed by America in the past, but we're able to stop Israel today. The same idea applies to the terrible treatment of non-while populations in America today by ICE and other agencies, while we're on the topic of preventable atrocities.