When you are a member of a safe, advantaged group, and this choice is being made wholly voluntarily, I 100% agree (and am myself “childfree”).

But telling a group that is under attack that they should not have kids is just furthering that group’s diminishment. Once Israel isn’t trying to wipe out Palestinians, and their survival isn’t at stake, and they can make that choice without duress, then it’s fair. Until then, this just seems to inherently create an argument that any group that is under threat should let itself die out rather than struggle on.

Why would you have them in the first place when they aren’t likely to have an enjoyable life?

Making a personal choice is one thing. Telling people that they shouldn’t, based on their socioeconomic situation, is entirely another. “Survival of the wealthiest” is not an ideology I can conclude to be moral.

Oh no! Anyways…

So many adults just want kids to be accessories to show off. They care more about what their acquaintances want, than what their kids want.

I think it’s several different things

1. a visual design aesthetic
2. specific gameplay mechanics
3. “legacy” systems and software

I think each of them can differ in whether they’re fixed or not. Generally I think that in game design, retro is fairly anchored when it comes to visual aesthetics and gameplay design. “Boomer shooter” mechanics and visuals, pixel art games, etc. I suspect we’ll still see those ‘retro’ games in 20 years, and probably not see e.g. Ubisoft-style open world control-point-capture games being called retro.

Consoles though, I do think shift into retro status very consistently. I think there are people who would even consider DS or certainly GBA games as retro already.

That depends on the license.

I have to keep track of our FOSS licenses at my job, and we have to avoid certain tools that feature licenses that do actually require upstream contribs. They usually only specify this as a req for commercial use of the tool, as a way to prevent someone taking the FOSS tool, adding new functions, profiting off the free work, and giving nothing back.

The Reciprocal Public License is one example.

Don’t ever take media for granted. Back up everything yourself, and make it available to whoever you can.

Politicians want to ban books and other media they dislike, and attacking “pirated” and “obscene” media is part of that path.

Internet Archive thought that by being a legitimate org, they could avoid the anti-consumer, anti-education media-hoarding and denial of companies and the government, but the reality is that individuals were always going to have to be the ones to save media ourselves.

Nah, they would just admit they were only ever in it for political power and authority, and become warlords, or a police state like us.

Here’s hoping this reverses, and that the reversal continues to accelerate.

“First they came for the women…”

So is CNN going full “we’re actually just entertainment” now?

This reminds me of similar questions around both Atomic Heart and Hogwarts: Legacy, and I think there are a couple differences in both cases.

In the case of Atomic Heart, part of the controversy was related to the sexualized robots that bear a traditional Ukranian hairstyle, and how subservient they are towards the player, as well as the way the USSR was depicted in general in the game. Taken together, a lot of people saw that as reflective of the current and common attitude of Ukraine being a subject state of Russia. So the monetary support for the devs were potentially directly benefiting people with questionable views.

In the case of Hogwarts: Legacy, the connection to a bad actor is even more clear cut, wrt JKR. Abstaining from purchasing it was roundly discussed as a boycott of her and her views, even if she had minimal connection to the game itself (we know she did financially benefit from it, as she stated it herself on Xitter).

I think this is one too many steps removed for me to condemn it in the same vein. Yes, Russia will benefit in tax revenue from it, but the studio isn’t state-owned or something; it’s no different than buying something made (in whole or part) in China giving tax money to the CCP to further Uighur genocide in Xinjiang, or tax money in the US going towards genocide in Gaza via military aid.

I’m not saying you’re a hypocrite if you choose to not buy this but still pay US taxes, because ultimately the consequences that you face for those 2 actions is very different. I might say it’s hypocritical to buy Chinese goods though, given they are still trading with Russia and supplying them materials.

Personally, I’m not going to treat all people as proxies for their government; that’s too close to collective punishment.

Absolutely this is why the data looks this way. I bet if they looked at searches for “trans woman”, “trans man”, “mtf”, “ftm”, etc, the charts would be reversed.

Also, people searching “femboy” mostly won’t be looking for trans content at all, just… femboys (cisgender men who express themselves in what are traditionally feminine ways).

Before that, Karen White noticed a lot of trouble outside the shopping center.

Is this a satire piece?

I really hope so. The last thing we need is Nintendo deciding that they own every game mechanic they’ve ever used.

Booby traps are a war crime, because they do not discriminate between civilians and combatants, even if you place them in a location that is only likely to be accessed by combatants. And public markets and banks and homes aren’t that.

https://theconversation.com/pager-attack-on-hezbollah-was-a-sophisticated-booby-trap-operation-it-was-also-illegal-239360

A booby trap is defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the body charged with oversight and implementation of the Geneva Conventions and related treaties on the law of armed conflict, as a “harmless portable object” – but redesigned to contain explosive material. They are a prohibited means of warfare and are equally prohibited by law enforcement authorities.

I’ve never said Hezbollah is good. I know they teach their children to hate Jews. I just also know what is taught in Israel.

If you think you can negotiate anything even remotely resembling peace with an organization that has vowed to not just eradicate Israel, but every Jew in the world, then you’re hopelessly misguided.

You can’t use the boogeyman of genocide to justify war crimes.

Netanyahu saying “it’s us or them” is the exact same rhetoric as Hezbollah, but I don’t hear you arguing it’s fine for the “them” in that statement to do war crimes in response. I wonder why the double-standard?

Except they filed a patent for exactly that recently, so I’m guessing it is for the capture mechanics. It shouldn’t pass muster in that case, but Japanese courts be wild (and very pro-Nintendo).

Of course it’s used as an attack on the Left, the phrase is the political equivalent of calling someone “ethnic”. It’s white-male normativity by the owner class.

“Genteel” white men controlling all political power and wealth is normal politics, but other people being involved is identity politics.