Originally Posted by PepsiFree
As was mentioned when someone brought up a book about progressive safe zones, this has as much to do with American Politics as essentially everything has to do with American Politics. Yes, it's loosely tied as the decision seems to be a result of a societal change, and any societal change is connected to politics, but this is not a catch all thread for every thought, ideal, product, or action with ties to politics, because that would be nearly everything, and most things (like your video game) have thread specifically dedicated to them, so use them.
As you should be able to tell, what's being discussed here is actual politics, politicians, elections, and things that directly affect voters by intention or ability to vote. Everything being discussed at any length at all is directly tied to politics, not loosely, and you should easily be able to figure out the difference.
So woohoo, a player has a marginally higher rating in a videogame because... affirmative action... or something... great. Such garbage, so much trash.
If you wanted to make a point, you could've done that, otherwise you're just talking about a videogame and how CK having a higher rating is trash (no explanation of why, or how it ties in, or what the political ramifications of this are... you know, things required if you want to make the connection). You basically gave supporting evidence of a point you didn't even bother to make, so what is anyone supposed to do with that?
On one hand, my initial response is that it's weird you have a stronger and less nuanced reaction to a video game rating being unjust than someone being shot by the police (this is not an accusation of anything towards you as a person, to be clear, simply noting I think it's a weird juxtaposition and that your reaction to the videogame doesn't fit your overall "measuredness" or whatever in other areas), on the other hand, the easiest response is that nobody gives a #### about EA videogame rankings in a thread discussing American Politics.
|