• 2 Posts
  • 704 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle





  • I don’t inherit the sins of my father solely because of my skin color.

    Correct. We inherit the responsibility to do what we can to make those wrongs right because of the advantages we are afforded by our historical background.

    Because of the family I was born into, I was afforded easy access to food, shelter, and education, and easily able to find success and prosperity. This allows my children the same, and that’s, in large part, a result of history. Those coming from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds do so because, again at least in part, my distant relatives stole from them to my benefit.

    When these issues are divided by skin color, then yes, it is racist to ignore them in their entirety over the argument that we had no direct control over the actions of our forefathers, as we continue to benefit from them today. It’s really some trolley problem stuff: we are advantaged by being the ones hanging out around the lever, not tied to the tracks. When we are asked to switch the tracks, or heaven forbid stop the trolley, we should not respond, “it’s racist to tell me I should be doing something about this! I didn’t build the tracks! I don’t own the trolley!” Okay, cool. But they’re down there, on the tracks, and we’re up here, next to the lever. Call it luck, but by the nature of our birth, we have an advantage that minorities do not. It is not racist to identify that.

    You want genuine people, friend, taking the time to try and discuss these perspectives to someone is about as genuine as it gets. It’s not easy to accept that, despite massive personal struggles and relative low wealth and prosperity in a world owned by billionaires, I’ve been at an advantage just because I was born European descendant Caucasian. Don’t mistake disagreement for a lack of authenticity, or being poor of character.







  • I mean, this just isn’t true, though. You’re not wrong in pointing out that the scope of sales has changed, but so has the scope of development, as well as consumer expectation. I suspect if you compare the number of man hours spent on a title today vs an NES game, it’s not even a comparable discussion. And then there’s the matter of post-release support.

    To be clear, I don’t think a $30 price hike for physical copies is at all sensible, but the arguments being presented both for and against it are incredibly poorly thought out. Everyone presents a single facet of videogame development today compared to years ago and then acts like it’s a “gotcha” that proves their point. The entire ecosystem of game development and consumption has changed so drastically, that any discussion comparing the adjusted for inflation price of games then vs now is just pointless. Art and entertainment are art and entertainment, and it’s impossible to create a de-facto value statement for them, because consumer subjectivity, bias, and valuation is too wide to make objective statements about.

    Imo, the real criticism of the matter is that +50% cost during a time of economic upheaval, when the buying power of the middle class is approaching the weakest it’s been in a long time, is going to be received poorly, and probably result in a loss of Western sales. It’s a massive leap, in a single generation, at the worst possible time, regardless of what inflation adjustments tell us.


  • While I am not okay with the game price hike, you’re comparing genuine dog shit to actual good games. It’s like asking why anyone would ever order a steak when they can just go to McDonald’s. Sure they’re both food, but they’re not really comprable.

    That said, I am not trying to justify Nintendo’s pricing. They’re asking for too much of a leap (+50%!!!) in too short of a time frame. But this meme is a bad argument.



  • Huh, colour me surprised. Here I thought right-wing money had bought up any journalism trying to sell itself as “independant.”

    Either way, the headline is right: we shouldn’t count him or the CPCs ability to garner support through spreading fear, hate or misinformation as “out.” It’s important that we continue to view him as a legitimate threat to free speech, and potentially even Canadian soverignty, right up until elections close.