While at the same time allowing people to be systemically murdered through lack of access to necessities because someone wasn't able to make a profit off of them.
Or are you trying to say those deaths are justified just because the state doesn't label it as "murder"?
Making people angry enough to get up and do something about it, angry enough to disregard the system and start breaking it. Angry enough to disobey.
Instead people are all too happy to remain obedient to the very system that oppresses them as long as they continue to be provided their bread and circuses.
Rage can be a useful tool when that anger is channeled into a cause.
We shouldn't lose ourselves to anger, that is true, but we also shouldn't pacify ourselves out of fear of it.
Thing is, we can do something about it — just not alone.
The rub is that it requires other people joining us and organizing to use our collective power to assert our political authority to take back ownership over the base resources which enable society to exist and devise a new system to replace the current, failed system.
Unfortunately that takes a lot of hard work and an inordinate amount of risk. People aren't ready yet to take that plunge; there are still too much bread and circuses keeping the majority of the working class distracted and pacified.
But hey, lamp right?
That was the last time AAA publishers allowed devs to take risks. Those games, while profitable, were considered financial failures by executives.
That era taught the industry to be risk averse.
Gaming was profitable long before by decades at that point, mostly due to the quick evolution of technology propelling a lot of the innovation and novelty of new titles. Yet, due to how the economics of capitalism work, the industry reached the peak of how much they could ride those coattails before they had to begin creating their own industry growth, which was around the time of those consoles.
Publishers and Devs scrambled to find new ways to bring in more players. They eventually learned what worked and what didn't, and the economic necessity of growth forced those companies to rely on what they knew had mass appeal instead of taking those risks like before. The wiggle room just wasn't there anymore.
It is fun but it requires a lot of patience. If you didn't like Metal Gear and don't really have much patience then this game most likely isn't for you.
It's a very very slow burn, if the first is anything to go by. Like, there are high-action, combative moments but they are absolutely not the focus of the gameplay — majority is just planning routes, figuring the best ways to traverse the landscapes, and helping rebuild the local infrastructure for your Strand (the asynchronous multiplayer server shared with other players)
The main focus is on the messages, themes, and other literary merits of the story. Supposed to get you to think about things from new perspectives.
We stopped micro dosing over a decade ago. We on that hero dosage now, space cadets.
Yea, not anymore considering they dropped the gag at the end of S5 and they are now beginning their 27th.
Ugh, I hated the shoehorning of Butters into the group dynamics during Kenny's absence. Rubbed a lot of fans wrong to the point the backlash forced writers to change the ending of that season and bring Kenny back.
I too wish they would have kept the joke going. Or at least occasionally make reference to it now and then.
Lol you tell on yourself too much. The people using violence in that scenario was the Jews. They rose up and used violence against the Nazis that were oppressing them.
We all know what side you'd be supporting, considering your adamant stance against those who use violence. This is exactly how liberalism enables fascism. Enjoy sitting on your fence while you still have it.
The state should not get a monopoly on violence, especially when it wants to use that violence to maintain its power of authority to oppress the working class within its imaginary boundaries.
If the state can use violence to assert its will then we of the working class can do the same to defend ourselves against it.
Authority only exists if an entity has the power to exert its will over others, whether physically, socially, or systemically. If someone has the ability to say "no" and disregard a mandate it threatens the power of that authority to maintain social or systemic control.
Thus, power will always come down to the ability to physically force dissenters, after the methods of social and systemic forces fail to ensure compliance, from being able to reject the mandates of that authority or carry with it consequences that far outweigh the benefits of dissent. Otherwise, that entity has no actual control, as others could always simply disregard their mandates without consequence.
Hierarchical authority ensures its power to exert physical force without repercussions through the "rule of law" establishing mandates which employ systemic violence — and subsequently social violence through being labeled a "criminal" —against those who break said mandates, unless individuals performing these illegal actions have immunity from the law granted by the ruling authority. This ensures the population is conditioned to be hesitant to employ physical force to assert their autonomy, as doing so could come with major consequences, whereas the state can employ it freely to deter dissenting their authority.
Western neoliberal democracy isn't the only option and, depending on perspective, was part of the problem by systemically enabling the rise of fascism.