Bro they don’t share ANY similarities. Saying they’re similar because they all have “lots of sidequests” or “DLCs” is like saying Lord of the rings and Arthur Christmas are similar movies because they both have elves and an older mentor figure. I’m sorry but that’s just beyond ridiculous. Especially since you don’t seem to have any idea what their DLCs contain. And no I’m not saying that because I like all of those games, I only ever really got into botw, the other 3 either didn’t catch my attention or I tried them and couldn’t get into them, but I still know enough to know that calling them similar in this context is delusional, the only thing they vaguely share is the open world genre. They are extremely different games you couldn’t have chosen more different examples if you tried, I can think of a ton of non open world games that have more similarities with each.

“every game looks exactly the same” proceeds to list 4 games that could not be more different from each other lmfao. You have to be trolling.

No I don’t think people who use the word “digger” are specifically and purposefully altering the N word and directly referencing it.

By that logic any smaller predator that feeds on small animals is a “cat” and any large predator that feeds on larger animals and/or hunts in packs is a “dog” which is… Not at all how nature works. Foxes are canines that exhibit a lot of classic canine behaviour and very little cat behaviour in top of many behaviours unique to foxes, domestic cats are not actually solitary creatures just solitary hunters hence why they develop colonies, some wolf species are solitary hunters such as the maned wolf, birds of prey also fill the same ecological niche as cats, as do weasels, chimpanzees are also apex pack hunting mammals too but no one would ever say they’re running “dog software”, heck humans are the ultimate Apex pack hunting predator, does that mean wolves are just running “human software”? Lions and hyenas exhibit completely different behaviours and social structures from both domestic dogs and cats as well as each other, lions also aren’t the only large cats that hunt in groups, cheetahs can as well when they form a coalition. It just seems like a dumb way to classify animals as if dogs and cats aren’t extremely diverse and complex animals in their own right and instead every member has to be forced into these awkward and inaccurate “hardware vs software” stereotypes.

I mean, if you can find a way to harness it, it sounds like the perfect way to banish enemies to the shadow realm.

Saving the kid from cavities.

Foxes don’t share all that many behaviours with cats though, they share more with dogs, so I don’t know why people always say this.

What would the D even stand for? 🤔

Stuff like this is part of why I dropped out of multimedia production in college, I only enjoy that stuff as a hobby for myself, doing it for other people is a creative nightmare lol

That’s an entirely different argument, and not the argument you were making. You are claiming they are antisemitic because they don’t like religion, when being antisemitic is absolutely not the same thing as being anti-religion. And being anti-liberal isn’t the same thing as hating gay people just because they’re a majority liberal group of people, there are conservative gay people too believe it or not, that’s a false equivalence. Also gay people don’t choose to be gay, but religion or politics is not something you’re born with and are unable to change, religion/politics are willful beliefs and practices and something you choose to be a part of, if you have an issue with hating religion as a whole that’s fine you can have that opinion, but argue that instead of making baseless accusations, and use an appropriate argument instead of comparing being gay to being religious. If they’d singled out people who are ethnically Jewish at any point then maybe you’d have half a leg to stand on with that comparison, but they’re not talking about ethnically Jewish people they’re talking about religion in general, and it’s possible to be ethnically Jewish without being religious. Hell they never even named Judaism explicitly in their original comment. It is canon to most mainstream Christian beliefs that Jesus was a Jewish person killed by other Jewish people, whether you like it or not, if you have a problem with that take it up with Christianity but that’s not the other commenter’s fault.

There are a LOT of very good reasons for someone to hate religion as a whole that have absolutely nothing to do with being antisemitic. And I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t hate religion myself, though I can understand why some people do, especially since I’m a member of the lgbt community.

“it wasn’t the Romans it was the Jews” is also a fact of the most mainstream versions of Christian/Catholic beliefs. It’s also a fact of their beliefs that Jesus himself was Jewish, and I was taught both of those things when growing up in a religious school system without ever being taught to blame or hate Jewish people for it because Jewish people were also regularly victims of oppression in the bible being saved whether by Moses or God himself or others. Someone using it as an example of religious infighting doesn’t automatically mean it’s being used as an antisemitic argument. Whether you take issue with how that account of events came to exist historically isn’t the fault of the other commenter, it is still part of the mythos as most people know it, and the conversation was referring specifically to the mythos. Jesus forgiving his own people and telling god “they know not what they do” is kind of an important aspect of his sacrifice and martyrdom.

Those were not the only original definitions of giving by a long shot. Another original definition was to provide, offer, impart, communicate, or pass on something, (hence the phrase “giving off” which has been around for a long time, example: it’s giving off radiation), etc. It’s not gen Z’s fault you don’t know all the definitions of giving.

If it’s a spot the difference style thing then the art won’t be dramatically different and you still get to have the box art at least.

They spoke about a particular religion because that particular religion was the one relevant to the conversation already taking place. You are reaching REALLY hard to try to claim they’re being antisemitic here.

A lot of people dislike religion for reasons that are pretty understandable. I’m not anti-religion myself but I can absolutely understand why some people are because like it or not religion has hurt a lot of people because of how often it’s been used to abuse and oppress others including other religious groups.

This just provides a small added challenge, I don’t really see an issue . If you want an easier jigsaw they might sell them at a toy store.

I mean, they’re technically calling black people the N word by proxy (it’s meant to essentially be white + N word to refer to a white guy pretending to be/acting black). So it seems like a case of “if you’re not black you probably shouldn’t say it”.

They didn’t redefine giving, it’s literally being used for its original definition. Just add “energy” or “vibes” at the end of the sentence and it clarifies exactly how it’s used. If someone sees your outfit and says “It’s giving Beyoncé” -> “it’s giving Beyoncé energy”, your outfit is reminding them of Beyoncé. As in it is providing/offering said Beyoncé-like energy, aka one of the original definitions of giving something.

There are mainly 2 types of “college is a scam” people. Type 1 is anti-education and places more value on what they typically refer to as “common sense” and think that you don’t need an education to know about something. They’re the type most likely to think they know more than experts and argue with engineers about bridges. Type 2 is more anti-capitalist and doesn’t view education as a scam itself but rather how costly that education is and the opportunities provided to educated people who paid the price is what they see as a scam. They’re usually capable of recognizing and acknowledging their lack of understanding about a topic and listen to experts because they do value education, they just think access to it should be easier and cheaper and provide more tangible results for the effort put into obtaining it. This post is probably talking about type 1.

I agree, though I also think there’s a discussion to be had about society’s obsession with punishment over anything else, and how sometimes it’s okay to let go of the past and appreciate that someone has become a better person and is working to attone for that they did and do good things from that point onwards, which is overall better for the world as a whole than them being forced to suffer endlessly for their past actions for the sake of vindication or revenge. If you’re going to take the stance that someone can have a moral debt they must be forced to pay, then you have to likewise acknowledge that there must be a point at which it can be paid. If you try to claim that some things can never be made up for and thus some moral debts can never be repaid, then that only highlights the problem with that sort of reasoning. Because if someone takes a life then saves a life, and you claim that one is not enough to make up for the other, then you’re essentially treating life 1 as more valuable than life 2. And what if they take 100 lives but save 1000? Can human lives even be stacked up against each other like that to say which group has more “value” than the other? That’s the paradox of a moral debt, something can not simultaneously be priceless and yet also not hold enough value to balance the scale against itself at the same time.

In real life this can be complicated further because it can be hard to judge whether someone has truly learned from their mistakes and genuinely changed their ways, but in a fictional story you often get to see for sure that the character truly is sincere. So to tie that in to what you said, just because a viewer/reader is capable of accepting a character’s redemption in a fictional setting, where they are 100% certain that the former villain has had a change of heart and feels bad and will continue to do good things into the future, that doesn’t mean it’s a moral failing on the audience’s part. But it’s also worth noting that being willing to give someone a chance to improve themselves and grow as a person instead of demanding their eternal damnation and punishment isn’t a moral failing either even outside of fiction.