I don't buy it. It feels like these vague arguments are used against any progressive policy. "We can't tax the rich cause then they'll leave the country!"
If fossil fuel workers are so stubborn that they will refuse to vote for a party that wants to transition them into green energy jobs then their votes aren't worth it. If the democratic party allows the workers of a single industry to determine their climate policy then they are revealing themselves to be spineless and useless politicians.
Democrats could minimize these issues if they communicated better. If they just said "fracking destroys our communities and hurts americans. We are going to invest in green energy and training fracking workers to transition to different industries".
It's like how they aren't pointing out that undocumented migrants are regular tax paying people, and deporting them would be horrible. Instead of doing that they've moved further to the right and now are campaigning about how Trump blocked their awful border bill.
Democrats only have themselves to blame. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
You're wondering why the west is hyperfocused on a genocide being committed by a nation state that is backed, funded, and armed by the united states?
Yes, US imperialism is responsible for much of what is going on in the middle east. I'm not going to pretend to know enough about those conflicts to answer your question, but I'm not exactly sure how it's relevant. But as a general rule, yeah the US should fuck off and stop interfering in other countries. It never helps and it's never truly motivated by selfless goals. America does not support Israel because Israel is "good", they support Israel because it's their proxy base in the middle east. Hence why not even Democrats give a fuck that their "closest ally" is murdering children daily.
The US should absolutely stop funding Israel and Israel should immediately withdraw from the Gaza, the West Bank, and its illegal settlements. Not sure what you expected me to say.
Israel created Hamas by murdering Palestinians and illegally occupying their territory for decades. So blame Hamas all you want, but Hamas's existence is also Israel's fault.
Fair enough, my ignorance/age is showing.
I've taken public transit all my life so I understood what it meant. Never heard the term in Canada before though.
Apparently we're calling commuters "straphangers" now too. I wonder if the NYPD will shoot at speeding wheelgrippers next.
I don't mean to be a dick but without giving actual reasons all you're saying is "I preferred ow1", which is kind of what my original comment was referring to. Tank synergies is definitely something that was lost with ow1, rein/zarya and dive comps were very fun and definitely something I miss. But it was also a major source of balance issues and player frustration.
Two tank team composition was a consistent balance issue and severely restricted the design of tank heroes. Sigma is a really fun and interesting hero, but when he was added overwatch entered a prolonged two shield meta which was incredibly boring. The devs added a cool hero, and he made the game worse. Not only did he make the game worse, but there was no obvious or easy solution, because sigma wasn't the problem, two shields was the problem. In my opinion that exemplifies how bad of an issue the game was facing and justifies the changes made.
There's nothing wrong with preferring ow1 but the person I responded to called it "a terrible game compared to the original" which is just blatantly incorrect in my opinion.
I agree. I was a die-hard ow1 fan and quit because of the absolute disgrace that was the transition from OW1 -> OW2. I have every reason to hate OW2 but I don't because it's a fine game and improves on OW1 in every way that is important to me (gameplay and balance).
In my opinion, anyone saying OW2 is worse than the original is saying this for personal reasons and not trying to be objective. OW2 is, in my experience, much more balanced than OW1. Many of the more frustrating aspects of the game have been fixed or removed, and most of the characters added since OW1 seem fun to play and not frustrating to play against.
There are very many valid criticisms one can make of Blizzard. The history of being a shitty workplace, the objectively awful decision to make OW2 a sequel, the treatment of Jeff Kaplan by execs, the monetization, and probably more. None of those criticisms (except monetization to a limited degree) have anything to do with whether or not OW2 is a bad game or not.
But I'm speculating since the person you responded to has not elaborated on any of their views.
Why? I played OW from beta, stopped playing after all the shitty workplace accusations came out, then played again for 10 or so hours last month.
I didn't play much competitive (in my recent sessions) but the game seemed like it was in a pretty solid place. The only "major" issue I can think of is that the tank role is incredibly important, which creates a bit of a toxic environment where people are scared to play tank because they get flamed if the team gets rolled. But I think the downsides are worth the benefits, with tank being so important it's become the core that the rest of the game balances around. Healers have more agency and dealing damage/contributing to elims is a vital part of the role. A lot of the frustrating/cheesy aspects of the game have been removed, scattershot, damage-doomfist, mercy 5-man-res, goats, double shield.
Again, I took a long break from the game, but before that I clocked a lot of hours in competitive. Personally the game feels about as balanced and enjoyable as it's ever been.
Obviously the monetization is gross and that entire side of the game sucks now but that's an entirely different conversation.
Fuck those people then. The democrats should not allow a small portion of the population to dictate something as important as climate policy.
The only way this argument makes any sense is if we assume the democrats are spineless and useless. Which they are, but still.