Because the people who enable to problem are part of the problem.
I'm a war you will cut off supply lines for the same reason, errode support. The commander doesn't say "people are dying on the front line and you're worried about stopping trucks transport bread? Get it together man."
If I'm offered a plate of tomatoes, which I hate, and a pile of shit as choices to eat, both are not palatable to me. But that doesn't make them the same.
Unless you have proof that's an assumption. Because it can also be said that the DEI games that failed did so because they were bad games, not DEI.
And how do you propose we ensure they are applied to the rich and those in power? Because until that happens they are being forced on the common man much more, as a weapon for those in power.
Rich people and people in government already get away with this stuff. Our president is a felon. If people in power aren't bound by the law then citizens will act. Only holding the people who act accountable is ensuring that the people in power never have consequences.
Usually the one that makes the claim has to provide evidence, that's kinda how it works.
Are we just going to ignore games that did well and have DEI. What about all the games without DEI that failed. Your logic is flawed.
And this would be a great approach if systemic racism didn't exist.
Everyone isn't treated the same, so helping them the same leaves people behind.
So you are going to act like everyone in America is the exact same. With the same views? Did you miss the election where roughly half of the country didn't want this or are you just lashing out because your stance was questioned.
Why are you talking about white people jokes when I'm talking about systemic oppression.
We were talking about systemic racism. A thing that ruins lives, not bad jokes.
You get how you can't solve racism without discussing race right?
Guy said he wanted to help people so have been and still are supposed and you took that as discrimination? I guess if we don't help everyone all at once we shouldn't help anyone?
I don't wanna beat the analogy into the ground so I'll let it go. But the point is, ones of them was going to be president. You will HAVE to deal with one of them. Refusing to vote is making the statement that you're ok with the worst outcome, because of you weren't ok with it you would have taken action to prevent that worst outcome. This is the general "you", not you specifically obviously, since you voted.
I feel like a lot of people thought "I don't like either, so I won't vote" ignoring that they will be impacted either way, so it's not a matter of who you like, it's a matter of effecting the outcome to get the best result possible. Even if that isn't perfect for you.