I think romance is included in a lot of stories because it is a very common component in life. We have so many experiences around love, and exploring that in a fictional environment at the same time we do battle against demons is fun for many people.
TTRPGs cater to you choosing your own story. To remove the romance from this story is to say that some choices in this story cannot be made.
Also, there’s mods to remove the romance. It would be a loss to have them gone at the onset.
I disagree on pretty much every point, but I personally don’t see the problem you’re having with the game. If you don’t like the nudity, that is optional (as in, there is an option for it.) If you’re complaining about the romance, that’s like an entire genre of stories. Heck, softcore porn is also a genre of stories that is exceptionally popular. So, why would removing it for you make up for the loss of potential customers that were gained from it being there, especially since you bought it with it there anyway? Idk, seems like you disproved your own point.
Your issue is that you have already come to a conclusion, and your issues aren’t issues to anyone but you. Give me an example of someone saying Hamas is literally fighting with rocks as an actual answer.
The biggest mistake a lot of people make is being born poor.
Is it actually incorrect? I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong, but it just sounds bizarre or Shakespearean if you use it when it’s not an auxiliary verb.
“I’ve no need for that.” is a perfectly cromulent sentence.
That’s not really a good answer though. Those are policies put in place long before Biden became president, but not only that, you haven’t proposed an alternative. Your current solution is “Don’t vote for Biden” but the outcome is that you either get Biden, a continuation of the status quo at worst, or you get Trump, a continuation of the status quo AT BEST. You can pretend you live in a world where you get a third party candidate, but you don’t.
Which leaves you in an unfortinate bind, since that makes you a fascist by your own definition. You are trying to push a solution that would make the situation at best the same, and at worst, much, much worse. As you said:
Any president not acting to dismantle that is fascist
I assume you would never take an action that would support a fascist. So, how can you argue that in a First-Past-The-Post voting system (and one that defaults to state legislatures if no majority is made), voting for a third party is a viable solution?
I think you can’t if you are against fascism. You can post links to antifascist movements, organizations, or steps to take, but the American election system is too fucked to argue against the two big parties unless you are ever the optimist, but I don’t think you are if you argue both parties are fascist.
Imagine posting your definition for fascism instead of nothing relevant.
Please list the descriptors that show Joe Biden is a fascist, because I’m looking at Umberto Eco’s and I see… maybe 1, if you reach a bit: “appeal to the middle class”
You probably fall under at least 4 though.
It’s a 10 day old account, they are 100% a bad faith actor, and you know this because they don’t acknowledge any of the ways to push for better treatment of Palestinian civilians. They are using them as a prop to tell people to not vote for Joe Biden (which is its own brand of fucked up privileged), even though Joe Biden is pretty famous for being bullied into better positions. Voting against fascists is, indeed, the right move, and Joe Biden might be a centrist liberal, but he isn’t a fucking fascist.
Yeah, I suppose those would. I wouldn’t have thought it, but definitionally, it would be! I mean, heck, some of those are listed by Meriam-Webster! Isn’t language neat? You learn something new every day.
Users create and/or share content, check. Users discuss content, check.
Unless you think something is missing from that definition, Lemmy is social media. It is pseudonymous, but it is still social because of the users.
Make sure you take your dog’s shoes off, too.
Lmao, this guy never got the blinding stew. My first time was when my mom thought I stole a candy bar from the grocery store, but it turned out my sister did it and planted on me, so she got double dosed, it was pretty funny.
Oh we can ___, we’re just required to pay massive amounts of money to a corporate middleman to do it.
Basically America.
I love Lejolas and Jimli’s gokes.
They didn’t, otherwise there’d be one less, they’d be wider, flatter, and the tray picture wouldn’t be from an amazon listing.
If you expect us to take responsibility for our actions, then we’d have to have real solutions, and it’s just easier to complain about things, plus we’d have to arrest a looooooot of war criminals.
Definitionally, you argued.
So, are you suggesting that people aren’t allowed to complain about things, are you suggesting that complaining about things cannot be done in tandom with works that better the lives of trans, or are you suggesting that people that actually want trans people to have better lives don’t get to complain about things? Because every one of those implications are dumb as shit, especially if you have any historical knowledge of civil rights movements.
No, instead you’ve taken a stance historically used to oppress civil rights movements, using a false dilemma to essentially proport that one cannot talk about the issue because that is wasting time not doing some unknown thing about it.
And by virtue of your own post, why are you arguing with people about people arguing instead of helping trans people get the rights they deserve?
You are making a silly argument that is flawed. The Witcher includes sexual themes because the book it is based on also includes these themes.
BG3 includes optional romantic themes because the game it is based on can include optional romantic themes. The game is about your involvement in the story, about how you navigate the world and its people because it attempts to mimic DnD. You can do a lot of “I seduce the dragon” and BG3 was designed to be fairly accomodating to a variety of tables.
To suggest the game would be better if it contained no romance when you haven’t played it is… bizarre? Especially with it being optional. But, that is perhaps the epitome of my argument. A lot of content in BG3 is optional. To remove any of it would be to make a game about options lesser.