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.

Mainly birds of prey I imagine.

Adding your body to the pile isn’t helping or changing anything. There are much smarter choices you could be making instead. I don’t see how how living to see another day is any more “meek” than willingly jumping under the boot and dying fruitlessly because you somehow think it’s the only way to fight back.

Congratulations! You won the prize of becoming a statistic! You win a news article about your death and an expensive funeral.

That depends on the culture and the method of distribution, many cultures that practice oral history did have widespread interest and access to it and an understanding of how their culture fit into the broader scope of the world to some degree, though the way they understood or related to it might differ from culture to culture (some cultures tie their history to places, or names, or events, or people or seasons, etc). As another example, the Romans are well known for their prolific historiography and many of their surviving texts are still referenced to this day. Look up Pliny the Elder and Pliny the Younger, who were just as well known and respected as historians at the time as they are now. While written works such as the Encyclopedia Natural History (written by Pliny the Elder and believed to be the first encyclopedia) would often be released to the public to be copied and spread, they would also often recite written works orally so illiteracy wasn’t as much of a barrier as you’d think. Oral history is a lot more important in providing a record of a culture’s history as well as making that history accessible to others than a lot of people think. It was important in ancient Greece as well, and is a huge part of many other cultures around the world including many indigenous ones. It’s also not as inaccurate or unreliable as some people might think, as there were many methods these cultures used and still use to preserve the accuracy of their oral history as it was passed down from generation to generation.

Now in terms of awareness, obviously there was propaganda and rewritten history going on back then just as there is now, but it’s not as if none of the citizens would have been aware of that. One of the papers I wrote for a class about the importance of comparing primary sources featured 3 different accounts of what Athens was like and the views people there held at a certain point in history from 3 different people of varying social and financial status, and there was absolutely awareness of that sort of dissonance between what their government claimed and what the reality was even among the more common folk. So I would say they did certainly have a significant understanding of how their culture fit into the broader scope of human history.

At this point that’s the equivalent of complaining about people calling gun violence a problem because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. If you hand the public easy access to a dangerous tool then of course they’re going to use it to do dangerous things. It’s important to recognize the inherent danger of said tool.

As someone with an academic background in history, historical record keeping both written and oral existed long before the printing press.

You also needed an original to make the fake with Photoshop, with AI you don’t need that so there are no receipts, so to speak, to pull to prove that it’s fake.

I mean there are a lot of dudes who do not have this “implicit understanding.” the difference is more in how normalized it is.

He’s also done a lot of wide-spread horrible things to get that money though, that’s the thing, the good stuff billionaires do rarely makes up for the stuff they’ve done to get that money in the first place. The most fantastical thing about Batman is that he and his parents are usually depicted at face value as good rich people who get their money legitimately without hurting anyone and then only do good things with that money. And despite that Gotham is still an eternally crime-ridden cess pit. Most billionaires donate huge amounts to non-profits or start their own. Hell I bet trump himself has done plenty of philanthropy, but that automatically doesn’t make up for the way they earned their blood money in the first place. Is Bill Gates going out of his way to lobby for taxing the rich, or universal healthcare, or other systemic changes that would help a lot of people but likely reduce the rate he accumulates wealth? Because he has more than enough money to make large waves in those political arenas and still be rich for the rest of his life. If he never made another cent and gave away 90% of his money to homeless people he would still have enough left to be rich for the rest of his life.

I mean yeah there are tons of other kinds. I can think of lots and lots of superheroes who are fundamentally anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, anti-nationalist etc. Spider-man for example is hardly right-wing, his motto is literally antithetical to the individualism of right wing ideology: with great power comes great responsibility. He’s seen as a working class man’s superhero who isn’t an old rich guy, the friendly neighbourhood teenage hero. And when you get into iterations like Miles Morales it gets even less right-wing. I’m sure the presentation of Spider-man differs depending on the writer, but at the core he’s not what I’d consider a right-wing fantasy by any stretch.

Heck, even if you look at the Punisher, I haven’t read the comics so take this with a grain of salt but a lot of people who have read them have noted that the Punisher hates cops and the series does not actually align with right-wing ideals the way right-wingers seem to think he does. From what I’ve heard the Punisher comics, especially modern iterations, usually depict him as someone doing bad things as a result of the system failing him and driving him to try and take things into his own hands in all the wrong ways. Not a glorification of vigilantism but rather a deconstruction of it. But even if you set aside the problems with vigilantism, enjoying it as a fictional concept isn’t exclusive to right-wingers. A lot of people who fall under other political ideals can enjoy it for different reasons. Robin hood isn’t a superhero but he is a classic vigilante archetype who is not right-wing in nature. He literally steals from the rich to give to the poor. And enjoying the concept in fiction is fine, fiction can be escapist sometimes, what’s important is understanding why it isn’t a good thing in real life.

Even rich superheroes aren’t automatically a right-wing power fantasy, it can be the fantasy of people with other political ideals for rich people to care about the little guy and take accountability. Tony Stark for example is someone who did become a billionaire by being a bad person and inheriting it from a father who was also a bad person. He becomes a superhero after being hit in the face with the consequences of that and seeing the truth of where his money is coming from, and after that point with most versions of his character he does use his money to try and enact real social change large scale and help people on top of funding himself and other super heroes, who are necessary in a universe with aliens and gods and magic and shit. His story is centered around him realizing that his money was ill-gotten and him trying to take accountability for that by trying to undo the damage he’s done and use his money to help people instead. That is at heart a fantasy that isn’t right-wing even if it is unrealistic. In comparison Batman as a character reads as more right-wing (if unintentionally) mainly because there’s generally not much criticism levied at him as a billionaire. Even his father is usually depicted as a good person, a loving parent who didn’t deserve to die, because the loss of his parents is his motivating factor, compared to Iron Man, whose motivating factor is making up for the things he and his father did to become rich in the first place. Batman is depicted as a good rich guy, son of another good rich guy, and you know he’s good because he doesn’t kill people. His money is bloodless and innocent. Though of course I’m sure there are iterations of him and stories which do address this, but the most well known version of him does present in a way that is appealing to right-wingers in a lot of ways.

Fucking idiots, trying to act like the chatbot wasn’t their responsibility.

Why the fuck would they even be thinking of letting AI make these decisions?

Probably not but that doesn’t mean we need even more dangerous and deadly sports to add to the pile.

You may need to consult a doctor.

I mean Musk wasn’t as loud about his bigotry at that point, not in the way he is now at least, and Mr Beast has been openly supportive of trans people. Being a bit of an idiot and being a raging bigot aren’t the same thing, and that incident mostly convinced people that Elon was an idiot. It’s entirely possible he’s changed his mind about Musk in 3 years. I’m not a Mr Beast fan by any means, I don’t watch his content or anything and tbh I found his reaction to the Jacksepticeye thing to be annoying which hasn’t endeared him to me, so I don’t have any skin in the game on his end of things, but there were a lot of people who didn’t hate Elon after the cave diving thing who do hate him now so I wouldn’t really treat that post as gospel personally. A lot of people don’t want to admit it but Elon used to have way better PR than he does now, and a lot of people have changed their minds about him over time. So atm I don’t see any reason to believe that Mr. Beast would revoke his support for trans people for Musk. His support of trans people is more recent as well. Maybe I’m wrong but I’d rather be optimistic about it until he gives me reason not to be.

Isn’t one of Mr. Beast’s friends or employees trans? He’s shown open support for them too. He has a vested interest in not associating with Elon.

I read your comment just fine, and the way you spoke about the teen in question was incredibly patronizing.

I feel like this kinda tech should be more widely available if it’s for health reasons, to avoid a monopoly on something vital.