I think you're missing the point of what a boycott is accomplishing in this case. I don't think it has anything to do with their financial situation, the boycott is presumably (from my perspective) to lower interaction and engagement and make it a less attractive instance for new people to get sucked into.

Your formatting broke btw

It's Ubisoft. They've been on the dark side for like the last 10 years.

I play 5e, but:

I feel that the reason people are hating on 5e is not because the system is bad, it is almost exclusively because Wizards and Hasbro tried to fuck everyone over.

There might be certain systems that some people subjectively prefer because they do certain things in a way they prefer, but that literally doesn't matter, that is subjective. DnD5e is practically a house name at this point. It is popular and well regarded, especially by new players. Anyone who wants to make the claim that the system is bad will have bang their subjective arguments against the steel wall that is its popularity.

So that is to say... the reason to not play 5e is because it's important to punish WotC and Hasbro, and it's important to support rising publishers.

Idk if you can understand simple concepts, but...

1. Yeah, sorry, that's not enough testimony to even ATTEMPT to make a claim about systemic rape war crimes.

2. lol you're parroting propaganda written by people with a vested interest in the conflict.

lol

Sorry buddy, that isn't how this works. Great try tho. Go back to the whiteboard and come back when you have valuable input to share.

It doesn't really matter that it's a "normie article for normie readers". Writing articles is journalism. Not knowing 256 offhand? Permissible. Being a journalist who wrote an article and didn't even do the bare bones of research? You're still a bad journalist, and as callous as it is, you should lose your job and livelihood. Bad journalism is too dangerous to just let it fester like this.

🥱

I'm not entertaining your "serious question" because I reject the premise. You know things exist. You're on lemmy. You're in the politics sub. You know the answers. You just choose to not accept them, without trying. And I don't care. But that makes you a joke of a person for criticizing someone who is, at worst, virtue signaling for money. Which is such a whatever "crime". Find a real issue to get mad about on the internet. Lmfao.

🥱

I'm not telling you to do something, I'm saying that this person is demonstrably doing more than you, and that is an objective fact. 🥱

Did you read enough to know that she was participating in a group organized "hunger strike" (whatever you want to call it, idrc) and that she was arrested for her protesting? Lmfao if you're just gonna sit around and do nothing about it, then at least keep your mouth shut, too.

Seems like your reading comprehension is lacking, so I'm going to encourage you to reread the entire exchange up to this point. If you can't figure it out, you're not someone worth discussing with.

WAHHHHH THE (non atrocity causing civilians of) COUNTRIES THAT COMMIT ATROCITIES ARE CALLING OUT MY TEAM AND I FEEL MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DEFEND MY TEAM FOR THEIR ATROCITIES.

-you

I'd argue the dragon age series died with dragon age: origins and everything since then has been a pale imitation. A "good dragon age game" is a solid CRPG with branching quests and story decisions. Which we haven't had since DA:O.

"I didn't read the article."

Okay then read it or don't participate in conversations that you're walking blind into? What the fuck lol

Okay, I want to dicuss this more later. It's interesting to me to think about something as taboo as limiting free speech, but I get what you mean. The power the bourgeoisie have to control the news and media and therefore public opinion is crazy. My first thought was limiting their twitter usage, which I do think would be wrong. But limiting their ability to manipulate twitter with money or other, similar tactics would fall under the same umbrella. (Hopefully Ninja edit: but should be prevented, I mean! They shouldn't be allowed to use their wealth to influence. But I don't think their literal speech should be restricted! Unless they break the rules or something and get banned or something ykwim)

I know, I see the .ml 🤣

I think the morals of it are important for the sake of optics in the least. If oppression implies a cruelty and injustice (at the very least in some minds, mine included, and probably most people given the dictionaries I read/bing search results) which is not associated with the movement, it might be better to not use those words. Fair?

Okay, so what I'm saying is that the definition I'm reading cites "injustice" and "cruelty" as prerequisites.

"prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

"the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control" (oxford)

"mental pressure or distress" (oxford- but this is the third definition and seems like a much more general word that isn't really useful in these conversations when trying to define systems)

"unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power" (merriam-webster)

Merriam-webster then also has 2 more definitions similar to the oxford counterparts.

"a situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom" (Cambridge)

I stopped looking after that, but I think that's fair, no? So then if we DO agree about these definitions, do you really consider it cruel or unjust towards the hoarders of capital?