This is probably not the whole reason but in my opinion it is the primary one. Young men are indirectly being told their problems don’t matter because when they are raised they get slapped down for trying to take attention away from women’s issues, and that leaves a very sour taste in their mouths that makes it easy for charlatans like Tate to take advantage of. Especially low-status white men getting hit with the double whammy of being assumed to be just fine because everyone knows how easy it is to be a white man, right? Thanks, apex fallacy.

The times where men have tried to form positive social support structures like the MRA/MGTOW movement, they are derided as being misogynistic, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as the outside attacks reinforce those assumptions. If you look at these groups today, they are absolutely infiltrated by misogynist and racist voices, but that’s not how they started. Gamergate is another example of this phenomenon.

I’m not trying to invalidate the issues women face or trying to claim that men have it worse. It seems we collectively treat this as a zero sum game instead of getting folks the help they need for the specific problems they face, and it creates a situation where people who could otherwise be saved are radicalized by assholes who are all too willing to capitalize on that and radicalize them. Worse, the continuing polarization makes it very difficult for anyone left of center to walk back and try to address men’s issues without immediately being beset upon by a mercilessly vocal minority of feminists who see any attempt to help men as a distraction from their own issues.

Remember that each person parroting Tate’s rhetoric isn’t some hyper-privileged fratboy who is looking for an excuse to do violence to women. Some of them certainly are, but I would bet that a majority of them are low-status men who don’t see any other options.

If these guys got shot mid crime by cops nobody would have bat an eye. These guys are legitimate monsters, there is zero room for doubt of their guilt, and there is zero benefit to society keeping them alive.

Why is it Valve’s job to police game content? That’s a shitty precedent for any platform.

If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Whether it’s ultraviolent stuff like Postal or Hatred, ww2 games where you can play as literal Nazis, or the opposite side of the spectrum where you have LGBT centric content.

Bear with me, that previous sentence isn’t intended to equate those two things, but the reality is a lot of people find LGBT content objectionable. By putting the publish/not publish decision up to platform owners, you’re setting up a system that getting your game published is according to the political whims of whoever is in charge of that process. Any system you make here can easily be abused.

If you think banned books are dumb the same should apply to games. I for one appreciate knowing that freedom of expression is alive and well on Steam, and if I don’t want to engage with content I find objectionable, I simply don’t. Why is that such a foreign concept?

Nuclear waste, bury in the desert for 10,000 years level take.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved Animal Well, thought it was a stellar and unique metroidvania, but I don’t recall any things that couldn’t have been accomplished with Godot or Unity.

You don’t see them in the wild because they’re terminally online babies who can only exist in an internet bubble, and likely don’t represent anything but a tiny fraction of vocal, obtuse jerkoffs compared to the population of vegans.