Wolfenstein 2 Is Punching Nazis In The Face

Wolfenstein 2 Is Punching Nazis In The Face

Image: Wolfenstein 2

Given that certain segments of the internet got rather upset at the last piece of Wolfenstein 2 marketing, Bethesda did exactly what you’d expect.

Posted earlier this morning, here’s the latest bit of marketing for Wolfenstein 2: The New Colossus.

Not quite the same angle, but the allusion is pretty clear.


  • Remember, if you’re against punching Nazi’s that’s ok, bayonets, rifles, hand grenades, and machine guns are some other historically effective solutions that might be more your style.

  • These adverts are so cringeworthy. Stop trying to be political and let me shoot Nazi without this bs left vs right crap.

    Only in 2017 could I feel compelled to defend fuckwit edgelords and closeted bigots.

    • What the heck are you talking about. Punching Nazis isn’t a left or right issue, anyone on the left or right of politics that believes in democracy and rule of law is against Nazis who stand for facism racism white supremacy hating any minorities, if you are at any point feeling like you can defend Nazi’s bigots and edgelords you should have a long hard look in a mirror.

      • Its very clearly anti right sentiment with how the title Nazi gets thrown around and how acts of violence are being called for against them. Its fine to sit there and say “fuck those Charlottesville ass holes”, but the word Nazi is thrown on literally anyone that has an opinion that isn’t far left wing. It is one of the reasons moderates have been departing from the left.

          • You’re being naive. These ads are specifically targeting the discourse around this issue. That’s what good advertising does, it holds a mirror up to its audience.

          • A reference without an accompanying value statement is just a reference – if I said “how about that grand final” I’m not making any statement on who should win or lose, who the better team is, anything like that. I’m just referencing the game.

            These tweets reference recent events, of course, but that’s as far as they go. They’re not making a statement about them and they’re not taking a side, the only political comment they’re making is anti-Nazi. Being against Nazis isn’t a left stance or an anti-right stance, it’s a stance that the vast majority of people on all sides of politics support.

          • The punch a Nazi sentiment has been floating around the internet since that toss Spencer got a love tap, but its also being used to threaten people that are not Nazis, they just don’t agree with far left group think.

            Nothing has been stretched here, the advert is clearly meant to tap into left wing ideology; the problem is that violence isn’t the key to fixing anything, you are just validating their opinions.

            When the left looks like the right something is going wrong.

          • I still think you’re transposing your own issues with modern politics external to this onto this, the stuff you say is clear just isn’t here. I explained the reasoning better in a different post, and I feel like the conversation is mostly stalled at this point where neither is going to convince the other, so I’m happy to leave it here having made my case.

            I just noticed the timestamp on your reply also, I only got the notification this morning and wrote this out thinking it was fresh. I’ll post it anyway since I think it’s relevant, just don’t want to give you the impression I want to drag out the argument over days. Between this and the loot crate shitstorm, I’m honestly weary of these topics.

          • I’m definitely not saying they take a side. I do think by being political they are inherently referencing both left AND right ideologies.

        • Really?
          Anyone? Literally?
          The only people I’ve seen labelled as nazis are at the far right wing of the spectrum. More specifically those with fascist, aryan race supporting and/or nationalistic views, ie views mirroring the nazi party.
          Right wing party memebers, ie LNP and republicans aren’t called nazis. Centrists like labor and the democrats aren’t called nazis.
          The idea of moderates departing the left is oxymoronic, they occupy the centre, they can’t depart something they don’t occupy.
          The general shift in politics over the course of my life at least has been to the left. Australia’s right wing party leader supports marriage equality. Marriage equality in the UK was brought in to law by a conservative government. More and more nations are implementing left wing ideals, both social and economic.

          • I was called a nazi on the east coast because while I support increasing the current immigration intake I would not support open borders; instantly had a group of people call me a racist nazi.

            Online there are a lot of stories of people being attacked because groups thought they were nazis. This current increase in violent culture only serves to ostracize moderates and validate far right wing proponent arguments that the left has lost its mind.

          • Surely you’ve heard the phrase “Feminazi” during your time on the internet? It actually pre-dated this current flood of nazi accusations that have become the zeitgeist since the election of Trump.

            People have closed minds now. Like @vaegrand said, it’s “Either you agree with me in totality or you must be on the other side of the fence”. For most people, the other side of the fence is Germany circa 1935.

        • So unfair to throw the word ‘Nazi’ around when all they were doing was throwing Nazi salutes while chanting Nazi slogans and carrying swastika flags. These leftist reactionaries will jump on any little thing these days.

        • I 100% agree with you, the word has lost all meaning and the left are violently ostracising anyone who pushes back against the dogmatic tribalism in full force these days.

          I used to call myself Left before I realised who that meant i’d be associating myself with. Besides, labelling yourself only serves to intensify this us vs. them ideology that makes meaningful social change impossible. If you’ve decided what side you’re on before you’ve even heard the question, you’re not being rational.

          And I find it depressing that we need to remind grown adults (who claim to be the good guys, no less) about the lessons they should have learned in the primary school playground: It’s not ok to hit someone who upsets you.

          • But it is okay to punch actual Nazis during an uprising against their conquering of the United States, which is the whole point of the ad. Just because it references the ‘punch a Nazi’ debate doesn’t mean it advocates for or against it.

            Take the game Postal as an obvious example. It makes ample reference to the several incidents of postal workers in the United States murdering or going on killing sprees, it’s even the premise of the game. But at no point does it make any comment that doing it in real life is at all acceptable, and nobody took it to be a political attack on all postal workers.

            References are not automatically value statements.

          • Again, not talking about Wolfenstein here, just talking about the political climate we’re in.

          • Alright, I took your comment to be in the context of the game and ad. In general terms, I think there are reasonable limits to tolerance beyond which more harm is done than good. Derrick’s post below has an excellent quote on the dilemma of tolerating the intolerant.

          • @Zombie Jesus, but this goes both ways, far left wing radical communists(Antifa for example) should be shunned as well for it too is a dangerous ideology that already claimed too much lives.

          • Ahh the paradox of tolerance. Here’s a quote that will explain it better than I ever could:

            “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant”
            Karl Popper, 1945

          • An excellent quote. Unlimited tolerance is essentially the same as the argument that intolerance of bigotry is bigotry itself so to not be a bigot you have to tolerate bigots. It’s pseudo-intellectualism at best, but more often sophistry.

            The notion of total freedom has a similar paradoxical limitation – if you’re free to not be imprisoned and someone else is free to imprison you, one freedom must necessarily be suppressed, at which point it’s no longer total freedom.

            In both cases, to ensure the most tolerance and freedom for the most people limits are necessary.

          • It’s not a paradox. The intolerance of intolerance takes many forms. Popper’s quote was certainly a mindset for its time, when there were literal wars being fought over these ideas. It makes sense that the use of violence would be argued for then.

            I’m not saying leave it unchecked, i’m saying don’t use violence against those who already claim to be prosecuted, all you’re doing is giving them the martyrdom they need to build support.

            I believe Ghandi said “You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist” (although quotes are regularly misattributed so sorry if that’s wrong). Ghandi beat an entire empire by not giving them the ammunition they needed to retaliate.

            Similarly, in films like American History X, we’re shown inside the minds of people like this, they expect violent confrontation, they crave it, it fuels the hate and fear they already have inside them. It’s only when someone shows them another side to their enemy do the characters change their minds. It’s a fictional story but the message is clear.

            I understand the good intent behind this mindset, that violence might deter people before they commit violence against others. But we’ve been fighting wars for our entire history. Violence only creates more violence, not less.

          • Popper isn’t advocating violence necessarily, but force. There are a lot of ways that force can be applied that aren’t physically violent. In my opinion he advocates the appropriate escalation of force as necessary to deal with the threat of intolerance, to the level of physical violence only if such a level is necessary. World War II was obviously an example of the most severe violence being necessary to suppress intolerance, but lesser examples exist.

            I do agree that generally speaking, meeting intolerance on equal grounds is preferable to violence and has historically had more long-lasting success. But Nazism has a track record of being resistant to peaceful challenge and an eagerness to escalate to violence very quickly itself.

            Even Ghandi himself advocated violence under certain conditions. Here are some quotes:

            I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.

            I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

          • Ghandi and Popper are talking about when a physical threat comes to your door. They aren’t talking about sanctimonious left-wing zealots who are going to a rally looking for a fight.

            When violence enters the equation, we have to start asking the question, “who is the oppressor?”. But without it, there’s no doubt in my mind who the oppressor is.

            It’s already a difficult moral and existential question to ask ourselves if we are right or simply the current majority. I don’t want to add “We also violently attack those who hold dissenting opinions” to the list of things to consider.

            I think we are so far away from violence being justified right now. Ultimately all the headlines I read these days are “Left wing somebody does violent thing to annoying but currently pacifist right wing so-and-so” It’s not a good look. The mainstream internet media is also massively left-leaning, so they’d jump on the opportunity to write about something violent the right does.

          • @geometrics

            Neither of them are talking about physical threats, nor of immediate ones.

            Ghandi always advocated the protection of the people from the oppressor. His reference to defending the defenceless below is a common theme of responsibility at a societal level, not just a household:

            Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman.

            His quotes that I supplied above are from The Doctrine of the Sword and Between Cowardice and Violence. Ghandi’s philosophy was that nonviolence is preferable largely because it shames the aggressor. He states several times that any person unwilling to go all the way with nonviolence and even accept death or self immolation over physical response, then violence is still the superior response than silence and cowardice.

            Popper was likewise speaking at a societal level, not an individual level. His quote above is from The Open Society And Its Enemies, a work that repeatedly notes the need for society to be defended as a whole, beyond the protection of the individuals it comprises. The paradox in particular is expressed as a means of societal self preservation.

          • *Literal or figurative

            (don’t want to edit the post, morons downvoting similar discussions like this in the past have left any edits I make to comments in moderation hell)

          • @geometrics I’m not sure what point you’re making with that video, but aside from someone moving his bag the response he got was justified defence. His racist language, aggressive posturing and lunging into people’s faces while he shouted at them is legal menacing under NY law (putting people in fear of physical harm). Pre-emptive self defence is justifiable defence, the first push off the train seemed to be the minimum force needed. He only fell after he charged the doors trying to get back in, at which point shoving him away to prevent collision was another justifiable action.

            I think this ‘Princess Nokia’ bragging about it afterwards is stupid shit, but I’d hope any train of people would react the same way if put in the same position.

          • @zombiejesus

            not headlines like this:

            I was referring to the headline, whether or not her actions were justified is irrelevant, the off-putting glee in which this “necessary” violence is celebrated is what is offputting. “Glorious” isn’t an adjective you’d ever want to use when committing violence.

            It’s this eye-for-an-eye, baying for blood rhetoric that really makes it hard to empathise with those who need to remind everyone constantly that they are “the good guys”.

          • @geometrics

            I thought you were referring to the video, my apologies. Sure, I don’t think the tone is helpful and I wouldn’t think of it that way myself. Obviously the ideal would have been to use some neutral language in the headline and article, but given the choice I’d rather a little inappropriate gloating than for the anti-intolerance message to have not been made at all.

        • No, it really isn’t. I hate the overuse of the term “Nazi” and “Fascist” by the far-left today, but this advertising campaign is just capitalising on the absurd ‘outrage’ that some morons generated.

          There’s nothing to see here. No outrage worth reporting on. Hell, the media should have just ignored the fucking retards screeching about this in the first place, but Bethesda may as well get some free publicity out of it too.

      • “Let me shoot Nazis that are actual Nazis, not just people that don’t share my political opinion” -but fuck Charlottesville.

          • Do I need to explain how this is just trying to capitalise on far left wing hostility to pretty much everyone?

            The theme of the video is a clear throw back to a shit attempt at justifying violence against people that don’t share the same ideology, its practically a meme.

          • A reference is not a value statement. Any association beyond the reference is one of your construction, not theirs.

          • You do not believe that within the context of the last trailer released from them that this is clearly the same thing? It seems pretty clear to me.

          • I do think it’s the same thing, in the sense that both ads make references to recent political events (MAGA in the first, ‘punch a Nazi’ in the second) but neither make a value statement regarding the origins of those references.

            I said in the previous article on this that I understand why some people have a defensive reaction to it, but it’s not logical. Very few people would disagree that real Nazis shouldn’t be in America, or that punching a real Nazi who has invaded and conquered your country is wrong; there’s nothing inherently wrong with either of those sentiments. It only becomes a problem when people believe that the ‘Nazi’ being referred to in both cases isn’t limited to actual Nazis but also includes all right-leaning people, which neither ad states nor implies. That association is being transposed from somewhere else and applied to these ads to come to come to a conclusion (and a sense of being offended) that go well beyond what the ads themselves contain.

    • Seriously… Those people don’t deserve to be defended!

      This is a group of people who would happily see me dead because of the fact that I love the person I love or because I have a mixed background. For you to be so petty as to be compelled to defend them because of a company taking a stance against them.. I don’t even have words to be honest.

      Grow up

      • They have the right to have the opinion, but they don’t have the right to enact it. You should have faith that the Australian population are moving away from such vile beliefs and be glad that we live in a society where the people that would see your rights taken away are quickly being outnumbered by those that wish to empower them.

        You are giving power to them by being overly scared of them. Ignore them, they are remnants of an ideology well past its shelf life.

        • I never said they didn’t have the right to their opinion, but there are consequences for certain things in this world mate. To react in the manner you have, which is to feel they need defence shows that you lack understanding on the issue.

          • Some hypothetical food for thought; my nan’s family are traditional land owners. By your own logic their people are dying, should they not go out and punch every person that is a part of that slow genocide (every non-indigenous person in this country)? No, you may be enacting the slowest destruction of their people ever, but violence is not the answer.

            I get it, more than you realise.

      • I would most certainly do that if people that held centre left, centre right and right wing opinions weren’t also routinely lumped under the same banner by far left “reactionaries”.

        • Extremists from both sides call people on the other side Nazis, its use as an insult isn’t a left v right issue. It was right wing talk show hosts that popularised the term ‘feminazi’, and tons of right-wing supporters have tried to claim the Antifa, BLM or the democrats are Nazis because the Nazi party had ‘socialist’ in the name.

          There’s an ebb and flow to its use, but it’s silly to think it’s only one side of politics using the term to refer to the other.

          • The left calling the right Nazis for marching under Nazi flags is not exactly the moral or political equivalent of the right calling the left Nazis for wanting to address the gender pay gap.

          • You don’t think people on the other side are rationalising this the exact same way? At the core of both arguments is (ideally) a sensible argument, it’s in the wack interpretations of it, and the terrible ways they are argued, that these extreme terms are born.

          • I’m sure the right are telling themselves it’s reasonable to call the left Nazis since the left calls the right Nazis. It does not necessarily follow that both positions are equally sensible.

          • Nobody’s innocent here, the Left are increasingly employing fascist mindsets when it comes to accepting their worldview. You see a lot of talk about ideas that are expected to be embraced without question without there necessarily being the objective evidence to support them. Both extremes suck and unfortunately their voices are the loudest right now.

          • The hilarious part of this is that the tactics now being employed by the ‘left’ are actually increasing more authoritarian, and leaning towards fascist in nature.

            Left and Right really refer to economic policies, both the far left and far right are staunchly authoritarian in nature, just with a different focus. They’re both fucking awful.

          • The left/right spectrum is more complex than that, but you’re on the money that its modern use is largely meaningless. The two-axis political compass is an improvement but is also flawed, and it’s misleading in that it labels the economic axis as left and right as though it only applied there, which isn’t the case.

            In its original context, left and right described the conservative monarchists and constitutionalists on the physical right of the French National Assembly; and the revolutionaries, republicans and liberal democrats on the physical left. Economics never really factored much, it was a mainly a division between conservatism in support of the king’s authority and classic liberalism in support of the rights of the people. That has since evolved into essentially the spectrum of authority vs people’s rights.

            Unfortunately, as long as people do use this single axis left/right spectrum, it’s not wrong to say that anarchism and libertarianism are left-aligned, or that authoritarianism and fascism are right-aligned. In fact, fascism was specifically born as a specifically anti-left (anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-democratic) movement out of wartime Italy.

            Ideally it would be better for people to just use other words to describe where they sit on any given axis. For economics that’s planned vs free market, for power it’s centralised vs distributed, for rights it’s individual vs collective.

          • Ideally it would be better for people to just use other words to describe where they sit on any given axis. For economics that’s planned vs free market, for power it’s centralised vs distributed, for rights it’s individual vs collective.

            I understand it’s human nature to easily categorise things, but I think the true ideal is not using any labels at all to describe where we sit. We should sit anywhere. We need to hear every question first before we decide how to respond to it.

          • @geometrics Of course people sit where they want. But words are necessary to convey complex concepts to other people, unless you plan to communicate your political views through interpretive dance?

          • No, just not saying a single word to describe our views. “Feminist” for example is too reductionist for the current minefield of interpretations of the word. We can’t be discussing these issues with single words, they are almost always sit down conversations.

          • I agree that’s a wholly justified reason to call someone a Nazi, which people from both the left and right have done. When I refer to extremists, I’m referring to the ones who call call a woman a feminazi because she stands up for herself, or a Republican a Nazi because they’re right-leaning. I think it’s in everyone’s best interests to confront irrational behaviour regardless of which side of politics it falls on, and part of that means acknowledging that both sides have people who contribute to the problem. I make no judgement beyond that.

        • Maybe you should show them how by dropping the reactionaries reference to a larger group of people most of which are not reactionaries.

          • Sorry, didn’t realise that being militant and attacking anyone that isn’t “with you” was the norm. Will keep that in mind when dealing with emotionally charged mobs.

      • Only in 2017 could someone not be aware of how much the “punch a nazi” term has been used to threaten people that seem more and more far from the traditional meaning of Nazi.

    • It is literally impossible to remove politics from this given the Nazis are a political party. Its like you drinking a glass of water and demanding it stop being wet.

      This whole situation really is ironic really. I dont know if this applies to you (hopefully not, I think you’re much more sane), But the type who love to label others as “Triggered” or “Snowflakes” got easily “Triggered” by this advertising campaign and turned into “Snowflakes” themselves jumping straight to outrage without knowing the context.

      The irony is of course these people jumping straight to outrage over this advertising campaign are basically admitting the there is some truth to the accusation levelled against their political side.

  • Hmm…
    So within the context of the game this is brilliant and makes me want to attempt a melee-only run. But taken with the context of their last ad the Wolfenstein marketing team released, this is still rather political (referring to the #PunchANazi hashtag that has seen innocent people be attacked under that slogan), which leaves me feeling a bit sour.
    Still, a part of me hopes that the marketing team goes full-bore and just announces a DLC expansion that takes the character to Charlottesville where he will beat Nazis to death with a tiki torch. That would be an instant buy.

      • Oh, okay. I’d assumed articles were only filed by their contents, not the geographical location of its author as well.

        • That’s more to do with whether it’s a Kotaku AU story or one of the articles shipped in from the US site. Eg Luke Plunkett lives in Canberra, but is a staffer for Kotaku US. Pretty sure his stories don’t get tagged as Australian Stories.

    • Nah, I still think a hard knock to the head is the most effecting. Gotta knock all that stupid they have gathered up there.

  • Its 2017. WW2 ended 72 years ago. Legitimate Nazis do not exist. Extreme racists do, they might wear swastikas and idolize Nazis but the fact is they aren’t an organized party with immense military/world power. To say that they are ACTUAL Nazis diminishes how fucking horrible the Nazis were.
    Racism is awful but so is pretending some huge Nazi threat exists because of a shitty fucked up protest by some rednecks. If anyone believes in Nazis being a threat in 2017 you’re not only stupid but out of touch.
    There are really bad groups out there that are killing people by the thousands in 2017, none of them in the west. None. I hate when people cry about their rights as if 100 stupid racists means they’re abouts to lose something.
    Maybe instead of overplaying a non existent threat from a keyboard those who believe Nazis still exist could protest the real atrocities being committed today.
    Also keen for Wolfenstein, already seems better than the new order which was great.

    • You might be confusing the Nazi party with Nazism. The Nazi party doesn’t exist any more, but Nazism is an ideology and people certainly can and do subscribe to it. I think it’s appropriate to call someone who subscribes to the ideology of Nazism an actual Nazi.

      The threat posed by the ideology of Nazism is certainly real. It’s not like we bought the good lives we have today with a one-off payment; race supremacy, toxic nationalism and authoritarianism are everpresent threats to modern society that likewise require eternal vigilance to prevent from ever gaining a foothold again. Because we know from past experience that once they do, they grow rapidly and beyond the ability of the people to keep under control.

          • Those who subscribe to Nazism want to be called Nazis. By calling them Nazis it empowers them and plays down the horrors of what happened.

            If someone is wearing a swastika, is racist and worships Hitler how does labelling them a Nazi do anything other than empower them? It reduces the meaning of the history.

            I think people on the left want to fight Nazis. It sounds better than fighting racist bigots. But its not the truth. Nazism was powerful, then it died. By labeling these people as Nazis it gives it a place to exist. By labeling them ugly pieces of shit its far more hurtful. If you tell those kinds of people they aren’t Nazis it hurts them.

            I’m not saying that ideas/groups similar or even identical to Nazism don’t exist, but by calling it that it empowers the cause. Maybe we need a new word but I think there’s plenty that do the job.

          • I see no problem with the word being diluted when applied appropriately. Even historically, not every Nazi committed war crimes or participated in horrors, but if they subscribed to Nazi ideology and joined the party they were a Nazi.

            The same applies today, just because the original party doesn’t exist any more doesn’t mean there aren’t likeminded groups that people do sign up to, and shying away from the full meaning of the word because there were varying degrees of ‘Nazi’ and the less bad ones aren’t as bad as the more bad ones is disingenuous.

            We don’t choose which words bad people decide to adopt as badges, and we’re not responsible for changing our language to cater to people who do. Outlaw motorcycle clubs love being labelled as criminals, they wear a 1% patch on their vests as a statement that they’re a criminal club, but we don’t shy away from using the word criminal to describe them just because they like it, and the word ‘criminal’ hasn’t lost any power because of its use.

            This isn’t an issue of extremists calling anything bigoted a Nazi, this is normal people from both the left and right calling people marching in the streets wearing Nazi patches under a Nazi flag espousing Nazi ideology Nazis. There’s a world of difference between the two.

      • “race supremacy, toxic nationalism and authoritarianism are everpresent threats to modern society that likewise require eternal vigilance to prevent from ever gaining a foothold again.” Ironically treating these small extreme groups as grave threats to modern society is also whats made them more relavent than they were 10 years ago. Hyper vigilance isn’t required to deal with a tiny percentage of losers. Just mock them. The less serious they’re taken the less of a voice they have. Let them hang themselves.

        Hyper vigilance should be directed at the genocides happening today, just because they aren’t in the west doesn’t mean they aren’t important. More people talk about Charlottesville than they do the slaughter of the Rohingyas which is happening right now. In the thousands. Not the one or two at a protest, not to diminish any death as insignificant but cmon. A bunch of fucking losers protest with tiki torches and swastikas and people act like Nazism is a serious threat meanwhile tens of thousands of people are lifeless covered in flies, families upon families lying in ditches while the world focuses on a couple of hundred rednecks thinking they’re some sick powerful movement. Fuck this.

        • People can and do care about more than one thing at once. I care about the resurgence of Nazis in the United States, but I also care about gun violence, healthcare, Palestine, the Syrian refugee crisis, the Rohingya crisis, the Yemen conflict and plenty of other things. They’re all important to me, just because I don’t talk about most of them doesn’t mean I don’t care.

          The thing is different problems require different solutions. Humanitarian crises need volunteers, donations and in some cases nothing can be done yet because of how dangerous the area remains. Social media hype does fuck all to help those things, demonstrated pretty well in the past with things like the Kony campaign, so you don’t hear a lot of social media hype about them. Nazism in the United States and the rising acceptance of racists and sexists is something that absolutely can be fought by social media because their strength lies in people accepting their existence, so of course you see more social media hype over those things.

          Different tools work for different problems. Looking at social media and thinking it’s representative of the whole picture of how people think is like going into a hammer store and wondering why they don’t give a shit about screws.

          • There’s no point in responding to someone that’s a delusional hyper vigilante warrior that is determined to believe in a reality that isn’t there. Have fun taking down the Nazis and defending the world from the rising racists and sexists. There sure is more of those now days unlike 10 years ago. Or 20 years ago. Or 30 years ago. Or 40 years ago. Or 50 years ago. Or 60 years ago. Or 70 years ago. Yep its on the rise now unlike 5 10 years ago.

          • Man, talk about believing in realities that aren’t there. Thanks for the good laugh, that was quite the fictional screed. If you actually believe I’m a vigilante or warrior of any kind, you haven’t been paying any attention at all.

            Be cool, honeybunny.

    • Did Nazism die? Not all members of the party simply died or decided not to be a Nazi anymore, A Nazi was responsible for putting a man on the moon etc.

  • If we want games to be taken seriously as art then we must also accept that they are allowed to be political. Even if they’re AAA titles that are in it for the capital as much as a commentary on modern right-wing links to Nazi’s.

    • Nothing makes me facepalm more than being told we should respect the views of the KKK and Neo Nazis. Legitimate Neo Nazis and KKK members dont deserve any respect whatsoever.

  • Preeeeetty sure there was a whole big thing about how Nazis are bad and shouldn’t be tolerated.

    World War 2 I think it was?

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!