When I was in school where I live (America) it was taught he was a serbian nationalist affiliated with the Black Hand. Not saying you arent right, just saying that it depends on your education

What anarchist started WW1? Gavrilo Princip was a nationalist, not an anarchist. Inspired by anarchists and anarchist strategies, but he was a nationalist above all.

Bella Ciao is an italian partisan song that has been used by antifascists since Mussolini took power. I highly doubt its a video game reference even if he was possibly first introduced to the song by HOI4.

Followers of the Apocalypse, the Railroad, the Minutemen. We got good guys, but they are never utilized well

Hang in there bro, it gets better.

I want shitposts, not shit posts

Depends where you live. Where I live we just get more funded cops to more expensively harass houseless people.

All I hear is that those in power are all evil because they refuse to help the homeless. In fact both sides in government work actively to attack the homeless.

Attacks against the homeless are perpetrated by evil people, its just the people you voted for are also evil

The reason is logistics (as usually the reason for most things military related). You can fit a hell of a lot more conventionally shaped grenades in a crate than you can with stick grenades. Even on a person, conventional grenades weigh less, are less cumbersome, and you can carry more compared to stick grenades. Stick grenades really only have their ease of throwing over a conventional grenade

I agree with you, I’m just saying I think thats what anon was questioning.

Its about not understanding why people get into it in the first place, not why they don’t quit after. You can’t have an addiction if you never try it in the first place.

History Matters is my personal favorite

Depends on the game. The more competitive, the more toxic it tends to be.

Up is subjective and arbitrary. It implies that there is a strict and clear hierarchy to oppression, discrimination, and marginalization and ignores intersectionality. If a black woman is shitty to a disabled white woman, is she punching up or down? How do you weigh the different traits that lead to marginalization? Who’s above who? How does this change as conditions change (for example racism in China vs racism in America). And in the end, what goal is it helping you achieve? Is it an effect strategy to achieve that goal? In the end, there is a more complex situation at play here that can’t be boiled down to “you’re above me so it is okay for me to be shitty to you.”

Then yeah I get that. Your initial argument without the context you just added was just reminiscent of bigoted arguments. It was wrong of me to assume

Unless you are also complaining about it when white male characters are also surface-level, 2-D, copy-and-paste characters then all you are saying is “Only white male characters are allowed to be simple or a stereotype/trope.” Lets be honest, not every game needs a complex and well written character, and that is fine. If they choose to go that route it doesn’t matter what race, religion, or gender the character is in the first place. So it doesn’t matter if they are a white male, a latina woman, or a black non-binary person.

Now I’m also not gonna shut down your solution without being constructive and providing my own solution, cause I don’t think quotas are the answer either. Instead we should be uplifting and empowering marginalized creators and game designers so that they can make more characters that they want to make. Which is generally characters they can relate to. If people want more characters that are women, then the game industry needs to become a safe space for women and empower them so they can provide more representation for characters. Same thing for any other demographic. That will make sure that these characters are being made in an aethentic and organic way, and not just being pumped out to meet a quota, but also isn’t restricting when marginalized demographics can be used as characters.

I don’t necessarily see the issue with codemning behavior based on modern standards. There were people at the time who (while yes were ahead of the majority of people (in the US at least)) opposed slavery. I feel it is entirely fair to extend the belief that those that believed in slavery were morally wrong even for the time.

I feel a modern parallel (not perfect but I mean what is for American slavery, it was that fucked up) is trans rights. Trans rights is a hot button topic that is highly debated, similar to slavery or any other hot button topic through history (civil rights, women’s right to vote, etc). Those that oppose trans rights are yes a product of their time, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t morally wrong and shouldn’t be held accountable for those beliefs.

Fuck terminocavum, at least follow the ceratops naming scheme

Or maybe its because the Red Army had 10x the manpower than the Black Army did and the Black Army also hadn’t finished fighting its own civil war yet so it was now fighting a war on multiple fronts. Unlike the Red Army which had just finished off the White Army and now could focus all of its effort on the Black Army.

Ignore that the Ukrainian Black Army was pretty helpful in beating the White Army and only lost after the Red Army had finished all of its other opponents and decided to focus all its efforts on beating its former Black Army allies.

Seems like there is a bit of a trend of Marxist-Leninists thinking their anarchist allies are prime for a knife to the back