Are video game devs inherently dirty commies, or did blackrock make them that way?

[Bertram_Tung]

According to your theory, woke is dead now because blackrock is no longer sponsoring it.

Not a theory.
And no, your claim is nonsensical. On it's face ********. Unserious.

[Magick]

According to your theory, woke is dead now because blackrock is no longer sponsoring it
https://www.esgdive.com/news/blackrock- ... on/759918/

BlackRock’s support for environmental, social proposals dips to less than 2% in 2025

How's that going?

Didn't you have your LLM summarise the article? This seems to be only instances where they've DIRECTLY voted (rather than funnelling money through downstream middle-men investment companies like mine, with conditions).
It also seems to be focused on purely on climate initatives, general "woke" isn't mentioned:

BlackRock said it voted on 36% less environmental and social proposals in the most recent proxy season than in 2024. The firm said the drop was “driven in part by a decrease in proposals filed by advocacy groups,” as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s mid-proxy season change to the no-action process.

The asset manager said in its voting spotlight report that it found many of the environmental and social proposals it voted on this year “were overreaching, lacked economic merit or sought outcomes that were unlikely to promote long-term financial value,” and “the majority also addressed business risks that companies already had processes in place to address.”

“Many companies are assessing how to navigate the low-carbon transition while delivering long-term financial value to investors,” the report said. “Over the past several years, [BlackRock] has observed continued evolution in company disclosures related to material climate-related risks. These changes reflect both regulatory developments in various jurisdictions and shifting market practices.”

BlackRock reported rejecting 249 environmental and social proposals due to companies having procedures in place, 112 for being too prescriptive and 33 for lacking economic merit, with some being rejected for multiple reasons.

Regardless, just because it doesn't ALWAYS happen or isn't the ONLY factor, doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.
I have personally experienced that it does, and you even have devs also being open about it.
They're not all just trying to blame Blackrock etc. are they? When it's themselves (and more than just a sneaky individual), they're usually quite open about celebrating it.
Therefore the ones that DO blame Blackrock / funding are either the ones who aren't fully taken over via hiring, or truthfully don't support it.

I do wonder the actual percentage of devs who fully support and believe in this BS, vs those going along with it because they think it's what people want due to social media (financial perspective), or are simply forced to comply or change profession / go full indie and never grow.

[rusty_shackleford]

According to your theory, woke is dead now because blackrock is no longer sponsoring it.

Not a theory.
And no, your claim is nonsensical. On it's face ********. Unserious.

wait until you guys find out that there's a bigger link between chinese investment and woke games than blackrock

[Bertram_Tung]

Thanks for agreeing with what I said in the Fable thread 2 days ago, @Stack of Turtles. You argued til you were blue in the face that this wasn't true. Glad you have conceded.

[rusty_shackleford]

According to your theory, woke is dead now because blackrock is no longer sponsoring it
https://www.esgdive.com/news/blackrock- ... on/759918/

BlackRock’s support for environmental, social proposals dips to less than 2% in 2025

How's that going?

Didn't you have your LLM summarise the article? This seems to be only instances where they've DIRECTLY voted (rather than funnelling money through downstream middle-men investment companies like mine, with conditions).
It also seems to be focused on purely on climate initatives, general "woke" isn't mentioned:

BlackRock said it voted on 36% less environmental and social proposals in the most recent proxy season than in 2024. The firm said the drop was “driven in part by a decrease in proposals filed by advocacy groups,” as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s mid-proxy season change to the no-action process.

The asset manager said in its voting spotlight report that it found many of the environmental and social proposals it voted on this year “were overreaching, lacked economic merit or sought outcomes that were unlikely to promote long-term financial value,” and “the majority also addressed business risks that companies already had processes in place to address.”

“Many companies are assessing how to navigate the low-carbon transition while delivering long-term financial value to investors,” the report said. “Over the past several years, [BlackRock] has observed continued evolution in company disclosures related to material climate-related risks. These changes reflect both regulatory developments in various jurisdictions and shifting market practices.”

BlackRock reported rejecting 249 environmental and social proposals due to companies having procedures in place, 112 for being too prescriptive and 33 for lacking economic merit, with some being rejected for multiple reasons.

can you tell me what the "E" in ESG stands for?

[Stack of Turtles]

Thanks for agreeing with what I said in the Fable thread 2 days ago, @Stack of Turtles. You argued til you were blue in the face that this wasn't true. Glad you have conceded.

Nope, that's not the same thing at all, but I already clarified that we were talking past each other then.

[rusty_shackleford]

wait until you guys find out that there's a bigger link between chinese investment and woke games than blackrock

this will drive blackrock-brained people insane because they're almost a 1:1 overlap of "BASED CHYNA!!!!"

Selection_001.webp

[rusty_shackleford]

guess who owns 30% of larian by the way?

[Stack of Turtles]

guess who owns 30% of larian by the way?

Joe Larian, of the Trenton, New Jersey Larian family, obviously.

[Bertram_Tung]

According to your theory, woke is dead now because blackrock is no longer sponsoring it.

Not a theory.
And no, your claim is nonsensical. On it's face ********. Unserious.

wait until you guys find out that there's a bigger link between chinese investment and woke games than blackrock

Do you think this is some kinda gotchya, ******? Of course China was involved too. Thanks for conceding that it wasn't organic. Thanks for conceding that it's actually FAR BIGGER than Blackrock.

[Bertram_Tung]

Thanks for agreeing with what I said in the Fable thread 2 days ago, @Stack of Turtles. You argued til you were blue in the face that this wasn't true. Glad you have conceded.

Nope, that's not the same thing at all, but I already clarified that we were talking past each other then.

That was my entire argument. Only YOU were talking past it, you shifty little ****.

[Stack of Turtles]

Thanks for agreeing with what I said in the Fable thread 2 days ago, @Stack of Turtles. You argued til you were blue in the face that this wasn't true. Glad you have conceded.

Nope, that's not the same thing at all, but I already clarified that we were talking past each other then.

That was my entire argument. Only YOU were talking past it, you shifty little ****.

No, your argument was "only zoomers think old video games were woke because they're jealous they never got to experience a woke-free media".

Eventually it became clear that your theory was premised on the assumption that those libtard execs I just mentioned who let woke happen don't count as "woke" in your personal worldview, which is stupid, so I lost interest in discussing it.

[Bertram_Tung]

wait until you guys find out that there's a bigger link between chinese investment and woke games than blackrock

this will drive blackrock-brained people insane because they're almost a 1:1 overlap of "BASED CHYNA!!!!"

Ok so this was all about you running cover for Blackrock ****. You never actually thought it was organic, you just didn't want them to be held accountable.

Of ******* course China was also heavily involved. DEI mandates are still all over Tencent's website.

[rusty_shackleford]

Ok so this was all about you running cover for Blackrock ****. You never actually thought it was organic, you just didn't want them to be held accountable.

Of ******* course China was also heavily involved. DEI mandates are still all over Tencent's website.

Tencent equally has near zero influence on what actually gets made

[Magick]

According to your theory, woke is dead now because blackrock is no longer sponsoring it.

Not a theory.
And no, your claim is nonsensical. On it's face ********. Unserious.

wait until you guys find out that there's a bigger link between chinese investment and woke games than blackrock

This is also true. The ****** have been quite open about it being a fantastic weapon against the west (while protecting themselves from such).
This is also why it's so prevalent. There's multiple reasons and different instances for this **** being forced in, it's not just one or the other.

Regarding Transistor, I was agreeing it's a perfect example of a game (seemingly) free from Blackrock influence (since one can play without noticing at all), yet still has a poison pill of woke slipped in because (some/many/most?) devs are fucktards, no better than the pisswizzard D&D DM who just can't help forcing others to experience their personal degeneracy.

[Bertram_Tung]

Nope, that's not the same thing at all, but I already clarified that we were talking past each other then.

That was my entire argument. Only YOU were talking past it, you shifty little ****.

No, your argument was "only zoomers think old video games were woke because they're jealous they never got to experience a woke-free media".

Eventually it became clear that your theory was premised on the assumption that those libtard execs I just mentioned who let woke happen don't count as "woke" in your personal worldview, which is stupid, so I lost interest in discussing it.

Nope, that was a separate issue. I spent 3 pages explaining that devs were co-erced/incentivized to push woke **** due to corporate influence. You, rusty, and rusty's personal ballwasher (oyster) all denied it profusely.

[Bertram_Tung]

Ok so this was all about you running cover for Blackrock ****. You never actually thought it was organic, you just didn't want them to be held accountable.

Of ******* course China was also heavily involved. DEI mandates are still all over Tencent's website.

Tencent equally has near zero influence on what actually gets made

Irrelevant.

[rusty_shackleford]

Ok so this was all about you running cover for Blackrock ****. You never actually thought it was organic, you just didn't want them to be held accountable.

Of ******* course China was also heavily involved. DEI mandates are still all over Tencent's website.

Tencent equally has near zero influence on what actually gets made

Irrelevant.

Just admit you don't believe in a single thing to the same degree libtards believe in putting gay ****** sex in video games

[Bertram_Tung]

Not a theory.
And no, your claim is nonsensical. On it's face ********. Unserious.

wait until you guys find out that there's a bigger link between chinese investment and woke games than blackrock

This is also true. The ****** have been quite open about it being a fantastic weapon against the west (while protecting themselves from such).
This is also why it's so prevalent. There's multiple reasons and different instances for this **** being forced in, it's not just one or the other.

Correct, and rusty was claiming it was all 100% organic.

Good to see he has now conceded that position.

But the next time this topic comes up, he will revert back to pushing his lies.

[Stack of Turtles]

That was my entire argument. Only YOU were talking past it, you shifty little ****.

No, your argument was "only zoomers think old video games were woke because they're jealous they never got to experience a woke-free media".

Eventually it became clear that your theory was premised on the assumption that those libtard execs I just mentioned who let woke happen don't count as "woke" in your personal worldview, which is stupid, so I lost interest in discussing it.

Nope, that was a separate issue. I spent 3 pages explaining that devs were co-erced/incentivized to push woke **** due to corporate influence. You, rusty, and rusty's personal ballwasher all denied it profusely.

They're not being coerced. That's ultimate attribution error.

[Bertram_Tung]

No, your argument was "only zoomers think old video games were woke because they're jealous they never got to experience a woke-free media".

Eventually it became clear that your theory was premised on the assumption that those libtard execs I just mentioned who let woke happen don't count as "woke" in your personal worldview, which is stupid, so I lost interest in discussing it.

Nope, that was a separate issue. I spent 3 pages explaining that devs were co-erced/incentivized to push woke **** due to corporate influence. You, rusty, and rusty's personal ballwasher all denied it profusely.

They're not being coerced. That's ultimate attribution error.

Shifting your argument. You just admited you were wrong. Thank you!

[rusty_shackleford]

If someone offered you $1 billion to make a game about how awesome european history is while being 100% accurate, are you being coerced?

[Bertram_Tung]

If someone offered you $1 billion to make a game about how awesome european history is while being 100% accurate, are you being coerced?

Ignoring the DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place which was put in place by the same forces.

Rusty is defeated once again.

[Stack of Turtles]

If someone offered you $1 billion to make a game about how awesome european history is while being 100% accurate, are you being coerced?

Ignoring the DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place which was put in place by the same forces.

Rusty is defeated once again.

The DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place was put in place by the previous owners of the company at the time you thought it was based.

[Bertram_Tung]

If someone offered you $1 billion to make a game about how awesome european history is while being 100% accurate, are you being coerced?

Ignoring the DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place which was put in place by the same forces.

Rusty is defeated once again.

The DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place was put in place by the previous owners of the company at the time you thought it was based.

Back to pretending ESG wasn't a thing, despite admitting it a few posts ago.

Cool.

Not interested in the "going in circles" bit. I'll pass.

[Stack of Turtles]

**** have the magical ability to corrupt people into wokeness by offering them money, like vampires. It just happens by magic and you can't control it!

[Stack of Turtles]

Ignoring the DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place which was put in place by the same forces.

Rusty is defeated once again.

The DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place was put in place by the previous owners of the company at the time you thought it was based.

Back to pretending ESG wasn't a thing, despite admitting it a few posts ago.

Cool.

Not interested in the "going in circles" bit. I'll pass.

The issue here is that you can't see how the argument has been completely consistent this whole time, because you subconciously believe in some kind of magic Jewish mind-control caused by Blackrock money.

My argument, and I think Rusty is basically saying the same thing, is that ESG money does not change anyone's beliefs. At worst, all it does is update their NPC programming about what the current Nice Liberal Consensus is like when CNN runs a new chyron. Most of the time it's purely telling them what they already know.

[Magick]

If someone offered you $1 billion to make a game about how awesome european history is while being 100% accurate, are you being coerced?

And if you're making that game, need institutional investment to continue, then suddenly all avenues for that are closed off until you add in a homo relationship for your main char, then what?
You can say no **** that, but then your shareholders want their money, your staff gotta eat, and some other CEO who is willing to bend just gets swapped in anyway, then what?

I've seen so many studios start off based indies, then get "corrupted" (financially forced, drowned via bad hiring, or drunk on social media) into going woke.

Regardless, my point about Transistor was that indeed it's a perfect example of a DEV shoving such stuff in (even sneakily), and that it's not (just) being forced/institutional investment.
The point of that sentence was to (mostly) AGREE with your argument.
But of course the Rusty autism OCD cranks in with the "AKSHUAAAALLLYYY" That, or


I'm curious actually (as going by Steam Achievements it was mid 2014 when I first completed it, so I can't really remember), how woke was SuperGiant games back then?
It can't be THAT bad considering those 3(2) instances above (unless someone cites more), where one is fully ambiguous and the other seems to be retcon or hidden meaning made public only by a single dev.

The DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place was put in place by the previous owners of the company at the time you thought it was based.

Back to pretending ESG wasn't a thing, despite admitting it a few posts ago.

Cool.

Not interested in the "going in circles" bit. I'll pass.

The issue here is that you can't see how the argument has been completely consistent this whole time, because you subconciously believe in some kind of magic Jewish mind-control caused by Blackrock money.

My argument, and I think Rusty is basically saying the same thing, is that ESG money does not change anyone's beliefs. At worst, all it does is update their NPC programming about what the current Nice Liberal Consensus is like when CNN runs a new chyron. Most of the time it's purely telling them what they already know.

Debt is a thing, ******. I don't believe in mortgages, but I'm forced to have one or not own a house.
Once you're on the hook for it, deals can change.

For others? (Like the ****** dev who did that with Transistor), it will have indeed been a happy bonus.

[Bertram_Tung]

The DEI that hired those woke ******* in the first place was put in place by the previous owners of the company at the time you thought it was based.

Back to pretending ESG wasn't a thing, despite admitting it a few posts ago.

Cool.

Not interested in the "going in circles" bit. I'll pass.

The issue here is that you can't see how the argument has been completely consistent this whole time, because you subconciously believe in some kind of magic Jewish mind-control caused by Blackrock money.

Nope, I'm not one of da jooooz crowd, so this strawman wont work on me. Better luck next time!

[Stack of Turtles]

If someone offered you $1 billion to make a game about how awesome european history is while being 100% accurate, are you being coerced?

And if you're making that game, need institutional investment to continue, then suddenly all avenues for that are closed off until you add in a homo relationship for your main char, then what?
You can say no **** that, but then your shareholders want their money, your staff gotta eat, and some other CEO who is willing to bend just gets swapped in anyway, then what?

I've seen so many studios start off based indies, then get "corrupted" (financially forced, drowned via bad hiring, or drunk on social media) into going woke.

Regardless, my point about Transistor was that indeed it's a perfect example of a DEV shoving such stuff in (even sneakily), and that it's not (just) being forced/institutional investment.
The point of that sentence was to (mostly) AGREE with your argument.
But of course the Rusty autism OCD cranks in with the "AKSHUAAAALLLYYY" That, or


I'm curious actually (as going by Steam Achievements it was mid 2014 when I first completed it, so I can't really remember), how woke was SuperGiant games back then?
It can't be THAT bad considering those 3(2) instances above (unless someone cites more), where one is fully ambiguous and the other seems to be retcon or hidden meaning made public only by a single dev.

I would accept this argument more if I had any evidence of even a single dev reaching the point of having to ask for institutional investment without already being libtarded. Probably if any weren't libtarded they would just make a GiveSendGo.