Gender ideology is literally sexual politics. The inclusion of the ability to select your pronouns (as opposed to what, I don't know, them being fixed according to the sex of the generated character?) is sexual politics. Modding that choice out is sexual politics. Removing the mod is sexual politics. Every action taken by all parties in this story is sexual politics.
Well, sure. Lots of people don't want woke garbage in their games. When it tops the download list the number of people who reject gender ideology is revealed. That's the real problem with it. It scares the shit out of the left because it breaks the illusion of social acceptance the left fights so ferociously to maintain by force and fiat.
Rejecting gender ideology isn't bigotry. Removing it from a game where its present also isn't bigotry. Removing the mod is just performative slacktivism and does nothing to help anyone.
It's literally gender ideology politics. Outside of that, there is zero reason to take down the mod. It harms nobody. It doesn't even violate their own TOS.
True, but the act does show everybody that they are political activists. Either that, or they're afraid of the left. Either way, it's worth pointing out. It carves out a space for competition.
They're both reprehensible political extremist movements. BLM has the added stank of being a fraudulent money-laundering scam on top of it, too.
I guess the Summer of Love didn't happen.
The left has no leg to stand on when bitching about ideological symbols when kids are getting kicked out of school for having a Gadsden flag patch on their backpack.
Rejecting gender ideology isn't bigotry. Also, like I said, nobody installs mods they don't want. It literally affects zero people who don't want it to affect them.
Thank you for making this distinction. I've never heard this before. Especially not thousands of times by the most socially well-adjusted people on the planet.
Evangelicals don't think that gay people should not exist, they think people shouldn't do gay stuff. I don't know what it is with the left, and especially the alphabet mafia, but you guys have a habit of characterizing the slightest disagreement as "they are trying to erase our existence." That's not what's happening. Lighten up a bit. It's a conversation.
Nobody is trying to strip you of any fundamental civil rights. Perhaps you're trying to characterize the violation of other people's fundamental civil rights as your own civil rights, and what you're sensing is the civil rights of the innocent being protected, which sometimes necessitates not letting you do what you want to do.
Yes, evangelicals, by definition, do not leave people alone. Yes, they are given to harassment, and they need to be checked against it. But what you see at planned parenthood isn't your typical evangelical, those are activists. And yes, they can be violent, and that needs to be checked. People are free to hold signs, advocate, and form picket lines, but they are not free to interfere with people's movement, hit people, or project bodily fluids on them. But again, that's not evangelicals.
Religion doesn't inflict damage and pain — people do. Conversely, you don't seem to be able to look at religion and see the structures and advancement it has enabled. It's not that you can't know, it's that you don't want to.
Also, "the top 1%" doesn't do nothing. They govern and regulate the business, which is something that has to be done. They take all of the risk. You might like to socialize gains, but you don't want any part of the losses, do you? Businesses take the majority of the gains, but suffer all of the losses.
And no, making something does not confer ownership. If I hire you to mow my lawn, you do not then own my lawn, or my lawnmower, or the dirt. You own the consideration I paid to you to mow my lawn. Same with anything else.
If a business has parts and makes them into products, and a worker takes the parts which are not his and makes a product, that product doesn't magically become his because he put it together. The paycheck becomes his.
Right, that's the definition in the book, but in practice, for what you find in the comments sections, my description is a better fit.
If people can't "own the means of production (which, by the way, every single person does)," then they are not free to associate or trade freely. Where people can associate freely, trade freely, and own property, private businesses get started. Outlawing business necessitates interfering with people's aforementioned freedoms.
Also, "kulaks" were a thing. If a farmer was prosperous, he was taken to the cleaners, sometimes killed, and his property taken from him. Communists reek of envy.
Removing the mod is imposing a political viewpoint, and it's also completely performative. Why should NexusMods care if the mod exists? Everybody mods their games at their own consent.
No non-conforming people were protected by this move.
