glaz
Pulpachair
22d ago
Not for nothing, but the Salt Lake Tribune is pretty notoriously one-sided in its political slant. Think New York Times or Washington Post, but without all the attempts at balance and editorial oversight. The article lists a bunch of things tying Zinn to republicans and sort of glazes over the things tying him to local Democrats. For example, the 2019 protest where he was arrested was a left-leaning protest over environmental issues. If I had to put money on it, I’d say he’s an opportunistic loon.
bolido_sentimental
23d ago
Glaziers?
Yeah it's really silly and something I've been pointing out over and over that constantly the "don't speak ill of the dead" and "Just because you don't want them dead doesn't mean you have to glaze them or not make dark jokes" switches back and forth constantly depending on who dies.
Basically any pundit you can find scolding right now you can find doing after-death criticisms/mockery and basically every pundit you can find after-death criticisms/mockery you can find times when they've scolded.
Great example how so much of claimed morals is really just signaling though, and honestly I think the main signal part is the "don't speak ill" side on both ends since when there's bipartisan agreement it's pretty much always for criticism being okay and dark jokes being funny.
Also the US in general is a country that loves being contrarian, the more you scold or try to censor the more they just love doing what upset you. The left didn't realize this from left wing cancel culture and the right censors might have to learn the same lesson.
How do you figure you are not just hearing a Shepard tone of things escalating all the time?
With difficulty and a considerable degree of imprecision.
There is pretty obviously no way to prove it, beyond comparing the predictions I've made and the reasoning underlying them with events as they unfold. @Chrisprattalpharaptr is confident I'm wrong, and has called out what he considers my predictive failures in two previous posts, one immediately preceding Luigi killing the CEO and the other immediately preceding Kirk's murder. And it's fair game; I predicted that the violence would get worse during the rioting, and I predicted that the rioting, compromise of policing, and attendant spike in crime would be lasting. Instead, the rioting finally wound down, "abolish the police" was largely sidelined, and the crime spike declined back to around the previous trend after only four years and a few dozen-thousand additional deaths rather than continuing on for the rest of the decade. I was too pessimistic; in hindsight, I think the "Blue Tribe ran out of mana" explanation is clearly more accurate.
And yet, we have had hundreds of attacks on churches, yearly, for multiple years now; mostly vandalism and harassment, but a notable number of arsons and shootings; my church has a permanent armed security team now, which is novel. We had a nation-wide vandalism and arson campaign against Tesla, with Tim Waltz among others winking and nodding along to in public appearances. We've had a worrying spate of trans school shooters which seem to me to be directly motivated by the tenants of trans ideology. We've had the attempted assassination of Trump missing by the slimmest of chances amid, charitably, criminal incompetence on the part of the Secret Service, and then the very obvious and quite public disappointment in that failure through Blue Tribe, top to bottom. Since then we've seen the rise of assassination culture in Blue Tribe, "who will kill Elon", national polling showing large portions of Blue Tribe endorsing the murder of Trump and Musk. We saw what that looked like in practice with Luigi: widespread, open support for lawless murder throughout blue tribe, again top-to-bottom, with unrestrained glazing from major media organizations and blue-state legislation being named after him. We've seen it again with Kirk: appalling murder met with undeniable, widespread, population-representative-scale gleeful support.
Multi-city riots against ICE have been limited because Trump established punishing escalation dominance from the very start, removing much of their political cover and aggressively prosecuted as many rioters as possible. And even with that federal hammer pounding away, we've seen facilities mobbed and destroyed by rioters, we've seen numerous serious attacks on federal agents, murder of federal agents, and at least one coordinated paramilitary ambush. In the background we're still seeing what appears to me to be clear support from democrat officials to assist all of the above by doxxing ICE agents and releasing the information to the public.
And to CPAR's point, this is a better outcome than I expected; in 2018-2020, I did not expect Trump to escape jail, much less win the 2020 election. The above is what it looks like after the Democratic party imploded itself in one of the most humiliating and catastrophic electoral defeats in modern political history, when their voters have fled and their donors have shut their wallets. This the mayhem Blue Tribe can inflict when at the weakest it's ever been in my entire life. Barring unprecedented measures or outcomes, it will most likely recover and will once again find itself wielding federal power. It almost certainly will exercise that power with a furious vengeance, unconstrained by the norms and structures that are currently being trampled by Trump in the meantime; Blue politicians are already running on a policy of "drive it like you stole it", and their base does not seem inclined to moderation. And why would they be? They're as desperate and policy-starved as my side is.
And even knowing that, I still think this is probably the best possible path forward; maybe Trump can deliver enough obvious improvement in living conditions that we win the midterms and maybe 2028 as well, and maybe enough political defeats in succession can force capitulation from Progressive ideologues and the demolition of their centers of economic, social and political power, and we can actually wind the culture war down. Maybe. Otherwise, it will be the Blue turn to prosecute culture war escalations through federal law, and my side's turn to prosecute escalations outside it. And there's still hope there too! There's a possibility that the struggle over federal power will have done enough damage to federal institutions that those institutions will simply lack the capacity to prosecute the culture war further, and both sides sag back in exhaustion to simply running their own states and communities as best they can. Society pillarizes, sorts, segregates, and good fences make good neighbors. It could happen!
Maybe.
It seems to me that your argument is essentially that things have to get worse because the set of grievances can only monotonically grow, but culture war material also has a certain half-life. People are still alive in the US nowadays that experienced far worse political violence than Charlie Kirk getting shot, but events from the '70s and '80s hardly count for anything because their political valence becomes more and more inscrutable as the past grows foreign.
I still remember that Blue Tribe terrorists and murderers got institutional protection and tenure. But sure, last time it died down, it might die down again. This is true.
Last time it died down because, on the balance, the Blues of the time capitulated.
Let's take a concrete example. I do not think the views this person expresses are fringe within Blue Tribe. I think that, prior to the ongoing backlash sparked by Kirk's murder, I would have been fired from most jobs in my industry for disagreeing with this person about Kirk or objecting to their statements. In order for the Culture War to de-escalate, this person's views have to become fringe, or Kirks views, and mine, have to become fringe. This person is pretty clearly willing to endorse extralegal killing to stave off capitulation. So, as it happens, am I, even if my choice of acceptable targets is considerably stricter. One of us has to lose, and neither of us is willing to accept that loss, and until that changes it seems obvious that the escalations will proceed on their current trajectory. Ozy described the core drive and Zunger did the math more than a decade ago, and everything since then has been fractal iteration.
Did the Unabomber attack Red consumerism on behalf of Blue degrowth, or Blue academia on behalf of Red RETVRNerism? Was Waco Red police brutality or Blue oppression of religious conservatives? Some fringe groups of course still have categorical answers to these, but even two fringe groups that everyone agrees belong on the same side of the spectrum now will not necessarily agree on the answers.
...Having deleted answers to both questions, I will accept that I may be fringe (Ted was much closer to Red, Waco was very, very definitely blue and I would be very surprised to see an existence proof of arguments to the contrary, I can't help myself), but it seems to me that better examples might have been Prohibition and Eugenics. Even there, the answer does not seem like some deep enigma lost to the sands of time; I think most answers from people here would be fairly uniform. It seems to me that the Culture War and the split we currently label red vs blue has been a coherent force for well over a century, and possibly three centuries. In this country, it is easy to see how that split has, over the last hundred years or so, steadily eroded our social and political structures and norms, and how the present unpleasantness is simply the long, slow trend going exponential as the last of our social cohesion burns away.
In any case, it is indeed possible for time to unwind the Culture War. But it is also possible to escalate faster than time alone can unwind, and it seems pretty clear to me that we are now doing that.
Again, the person linked above. Is that person crazy? Is their ideology meaningfully fringe? It's certainly not fringe enough that many millions of people felt uncomfortable expressing similar sentiments privately or publicly over the last two days. It's certainly not fringe enough that I'm confident I could disagree with it publicly and keep my job, even now. I'd give roughly 50% odds that the views they presented, together with views of similar extremity on a variety of other issues, are going to secure federal power in 2028. What do you expect to happen then?
....And all of this is based on the consensus understanding of what we might call the "math" of irreconcilable cultural conflict, which seems to me to give a high probability of things getting very bad. But I think it's actually much worse than that, because the consensus model is badly mistaken in ways that dramatically underestimate how bad things are likely to get, in a similar way and for similar reasons that people underestimated the impact of the iPhone on human interaction before its release.
You may disagree, and if so I'd be interested in hearing where I'm wrong.
YoungAchamian
25d ago
What outgroup am I booing? I'm booing Faceh specifically for his lack of charity and the fact that he probably can put the shoes on the other foot but is choosing to just be a partisan.
This makes no sense as a steelman. Kirk does not represent a a detraction from the truth so great, any concept ofbit goes out the window. Anyone who claims so would have to be even more diaguated by academia, the mainstream media, not to mention the heaps upon heaps of influencers they follow themselves.
This entire thread is filled was counter points, Kirk was not some virtuous truth-seeker. He was to quote Dase: "a cynical propagandist in the job of training unprincipled partisans, ever changing his tune precisely in alignment with the party line and President's whimsy". Glazing him as a truthseeker such is sufficiently large enough departure to be called out. It would be like calling Beria, "just an investigative journalist trying to bring to light all the evildoers" Calling out that calling out as some sort of lefty bootlicking fanfiction is very uncharitable. The steelman absolutely is that that anyone calling into question Kirk's virtue are doing the mirror behavior of people on the right who called out the leftist propaganda.
yofuckreddit
25d ago
I can't speak for others, but RBGs passing is the closest analogy. She did untold damage to the country and was glazed for weeks by her fans. That wasn't even an assassination and I'm still uninterested in broadcasting how much I hated her on LinkedIn. It's psychotic behavior.
faceh
25d ago
I'm curious, what did you think /speculation meant at the end of my comment there?
Now the right is committed to glazing Kirk and any concept of the "Truth" is out the window, and the right wants to silence you when you speak up.
By the way, here's a twitter post with over 100k likes claiming Charlie called someone a "Chink." The community note speaks for itself. The post is still up, of course, the right hasn't 'silenced' them.
The left isn't very committed to being the party of 'truth' right now, and seems damn happy with constructing an alternate reality for themselves.
I genuinely believe they can't help themselves. Maybe I'm wrong, but it fits my observations.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
26d ago
This so so boo outgroup I'm shocked it doesn't run afoul of the rules.
It's not, for the sme reason your post isn't.
Now the right is committed to glazing Kirk and any concept of the "Truth" is out the window, and the right wants to silence you when you speak up. The "moderate" lefties are probably doing the same exact thing the "moderate" righties were doing.
This makes no sense as a steelman. Kirk does not represent a a detraction from the truth so great, any concept ofbit goes out the window. Anyone who claims so would have to be even more diaguated by academia, the mainstream media, not to mention the heaps upon heaps of influencers they follow themselves.
They can't be disturbed by the silencing in principle, because that would require them to have a long track record of complaints against the much worse silencing done by the left.
YoungAchamian
26d ago
This so so boo outgroup I'm shocked it doesn't run afoul of the rules. Have some charity especially when you are going around demanding it from others.
The steelman answer is the right has spent the last half-decade claiming they are the party of "Truth" telling, that these lefties want to lie to you and silence you when you try to speak up. Now the right is committed to glazing Kirk and any concept of the "Truth" is out the window, and the right wants to silence you when you speak up. The "moderate" lefties are probably doing the same exact thing the "moderate" righties were doing.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1mo ago
A quick search indicates that this forum saw its first use of "glaze" in this sense 11 months ago.
TitaniumButterfly
1mo ago
glazing
Why have I never seen this word before this week, and yet like eighteen references in the last few days, each of which is presented in such a way as to help normalize it? Is this a psyop?
I don't think we had a lexical gap here. I don't think a new word is called for, and if it were, I definitely don't think it should be that one. Nothing about this feels organic or warranted.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
1mo ago
Worm was written by a man, and it shows. So was Practical Guide to Evil. It shows so hard that you can clock the author's sex just by reading the book, even when they use a totally sexless pseudonym and write an opposite sex protagonist.
A quick check confirms that Samus was created by a man as well.
If you've ever read chicklit, the difference is obvious. A female author of a female protagonist will linger on her interactions with every remotely relationship-appropriate male, to make sure the reader knows how desirable he is, and the flavor of his desire for the main character. Is he a good friend who respectfully hides it? A burning frenemy who offers aid even though he shouldn't? A simp?
As a man, reading that sort of book is alien in a way that few other things in sci-fi or fantasy manage. Like, you really go through life keenly aware that most men you interact with are at least some level of interested in you? Just because? As the default?
There is a male version of this, called "glazing", but it takes the form of gratuitous reaction shots to something impressive the male character has just done.
But women can more easily imagine being showered in attention and praise for doing something impressive than men can envision a world where they are loved and wanted just for existing.
Disclaimer: I think that last category might actually exist in anime, but I don't watch enough to know for sure.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
1mo ago
This may be low-effort but... why do so many people glaze Terrance Tao...!?
Prior to this discussion, I don't think I had heard of him. But I don't work in a STEM field.
ThenElection
1mo ago
I learned analysis from his excellent textbook on it. Felt it gave me much more solid intuitions than Rudin, which I was struggling with. (To be fair, I don't glaze Axler, so there's still a gap.)
BahRamYou
1mo ago
This may be low-effort but... why do so many people glaze Terrance Tao...!?
OK, he won a fields medal. Neat. Someone wins one every year.
OK, he won it at a super young age. Neat. There are tons of super-young math prodigies. I went to school with several, they all burned out.
OK, he's published lots of famous math papers. Like... uh... what....? Can you name them? Can you understand them, even a little? Even describe which field of math they were in? (no googling please)
I mean cmon, Einstein was famous too but at least people understood his work a little. Same with Stephen Hawking.
Terry Tao just seems to be a case where the nerd/math world needed a celebreity and they all descended on this one guy for arbitrary reasons.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
1mo ago
While I'm sure you're a perfectly smart chap, I'm also sure that neither of your ideas is worth patenting. If you don't actually work in data storage research or linguistics, the chances of your ideas being useful, or unacknowledged by domain experts, are low.
That's not to say they aren't interesting ideas for you to explore, or things that are worth investigating for your own curiosity. But absolutely what's happening here is that Claude is telling you that your idea is the greatest thing ever, which it's doing because your text prompts are incredibly excited and intrigued by these new possibilities: "You have no idea how desperately I want to share the details of both of these."
It's just mirroring that, and glazing you. And Claude won't "push you off of them" because that wouldn't be an appropriate AI response; it's trained to continue your conversation and explore the ideas you want it to explore, not to tell you "you should stop exploring this." Imagine if it did that when you asked it a question!
Hey, Claude, what's the capital of Venezuela?
Claude: Obviously this is a dumb curiosity question, just Google it if you really need to know.
Not a very helpful AI assistant! Now imagine the inverted behavior: "Sure, the capital of Venezuela is Caracas! Let me tell you some fun facts about Caracas..."
And then imagine that behavior amplified by your obvious curiosity and fascination with these ideas you've come up with; of course it's going to tell you they're the best ideas ever!
So, stay curious, stay fascinated, but don't believe an LLM when it tells you you've squared the circle. You almost certainly haven't.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
1mo ago
Without knowing anything about your ideas I can only assume that the LLMs, as they are prone to do, have glazed you too much on their value.
CrispyFriedBarnacles
1mo ago
And in some academic departments like English or any type of Studies department, glazing the work of others (especially the work of your direct superiors in the social hierarchy) is the norm.
Well, a very close acquaintance of mine is in an English department, and all I can say after the last 10 years is that, while there absolutely is a lot of that style of glazing (a lot of the communication styles are heavily female and rely on huge amounts of validation, or at least that's my impression), it has been tangled up with the most awful Campus Reform-style it'd-be-a-caricature-if-you-didn't-see-it-first-hand race/gender/sexuality crabs in a barrel dynamics and hierarchy arson you could imagine... and she has peers in a number of peer departments at other universities who went down that road as well. It seems like it's quieted down over the last year or so, but it was honestly beyond parody for a few years there. A whole lot of mid-career Gen X people were just putting their heads down, taking their beatings, and waiting for it all to blow over. But yes, to be fair, it actually had a deep family resemble to some of the insane art community dynamics you are describing, too, which I have read stories about.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
1mo ago
And what I've noticed, at least in my time in such communities, is that the creator spaces if they're functional at all (and not all are) tend to be a lot more positive and validating. A lot of the academic communities are much more demoralizing.
I think that's probably true as a general trend, but it also heavily depends on context. A lot of art communities (writing, music, photography, etc) can be vicious, especially when there's a palpable sense that you have a lot of people competing over very few economic opportunities. And in some academic departments like English or any type of Studies department, glazing the work of others (especially the work of your direct superiors in the social hierarchy) is the norm.
CrispyFriedBarnacles
1mo ago
You know, I've long noticed a human version of this tension that I've been really curious about.
Different communities have different norms, of course. This isn't news. But I've had, at points, one foot in creative communities where artists or crafts people try to get good at things, and another foot in academic communities where academics try to "understand the world", or "critique society and power", or "understand math / economics / whatever". And what I've noticed, at least in my time in such communities, is that the creator spaces if they're functional at all (and not all are) tend to be a lot more positive and validating. A lot of the academic communities are much more demoralizing.
I'm sure some of that is that the creative spaces I'm thinking of tend to be more opt-in. Back in the day, no one was pointing a gun at anyone's head to participate in the Quake community, say. Same thing for people trying to make digital art in Photoshop, or musicians participating in video game remix communities, or people making indie browser games and looking for morale boosts from their peers. Whereas people participating in academic communities often are part of a more formalized system that where they have to be there, even if they're burned out, even if they stop believing in what they're working on, or even if they think it's likely that they have no future. So that's a very real difference.
But I've also long speculated that there's something more fundamental at play, like... I don't know, that everyone trying to improve in those functional creator spaces understands the incredibly vulnerable position people put themselves in when they take the initiative to create something and put themselves out there. And everyone has to start somewhere. It's a process for everyone. Demoralization is real. And everyone is trying to improve all the time, and there's just too much to know and master. There's a real balance between maintaining the standards of a community and maintaining the morale of individual members of a community - you do need enough high quality not to run off people who have actually mastered some things. And yet there really is very little to be gained by ripping bad work to shreds, in the usual case.
But in the academic communities, public critique is often treated as having a much higher status. It's a sign that a field is valuable, and it's a way of weeding "bad" work out of a field to maintain high standards and thus the value of the field in question. And it's a way to assert zero sum status over other high status people, too. But more, because of all of this, it really just becomes a kind of habit. Finding the flaws in work just becomes what you do, or at least that was the case for many of the academic fields I was familiar with (I've worked at universities and have a lot of professor friends). And it's not even really viewed as personal most of the time (although it can be). It's just sort of a way of navigating the world. It reminds me of the old Onion article about the grad student deconstructing a Mexican food menu.
The thing is, on paper, you might well find that the first style of forum does end up validating people for their crappy mistakes. I wouldn't be surprised if that were true. But it's also true that people exist through time. And tacit knowledge is real and not trivially shared or captured, either. I feel like there's a more complicated tradeoff lurking in the background here.
Recently I've been using AI (Gemini Pro 2.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.1) to work through a bunch of quite complicated math question I have. And yeah, they spend a lot of time glazing me (especially Gemini). And I definitely have to engage in a lot of preemptive self-criticism and skepticism to guard against that, and to be wary of what they say. And both models do get things wrong some time. But I've gotten to ask a lot of really in-depth questions, and its proven to be really useful. Meanwhile, I went back to some of the various stackexchange sites recently after doing this, and... yet, tedious prickly dickishness. It's still there. I know those communities have, in aggregate, all sorts of smart people. I've gotten value from the site. But the comparison of the experience between the two is night and day, in exactly the same pattern as I just described above, and I'm obviously getting vastly more value from the AI currently.
jkf
1mo ago
"Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are fervent lips with an evil heart."
I'm pretty sure the "glazing over the truth" sense is comfortably pre-bukkake -- quite a nice motto for the coming Jihad to boot.
Eupraxia
Of all words spoken, all things read / most true was that which went unsaid
1mo ago
Not quite: it’s in reference to the spit-shined appearance of a well-fellated penis, similar to a glazed donut.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
1mo ago
Hm, I always thought “glazed” had to do with adding sugar to a donut or other pastry. So an AI “glazing” someone is pouring sugar on top of something that’s already sweet.
I’m familiar with the other meaning, but I thought it was a derivation.
Having tired of Hades 2 for the moment and stirred by mentions of Synthetik and Ruiner downthread, I tried Hell Clock to get my ARPG/top-down action fix. The premise seemed solid enough, and the Curse of the Dead Gods-esque artstyle feels fresh.
About 6 hours in I must surmise it is... not good, i my humble o. In brief, Hell Clock feels distinctly like a game made by someone who really likes ARPGs generally and PoE specifically (with a touch of Hades, ironically), with zero actual understanding of what makes these games work.
Un-briefly:
+ I found the artstyle quite nice, although the levels themselves are fairly barren and the style makes projectile spam really blur together as a side effect.
+ The character controls well and movement is responsive, Hades-tier is the highest praise I can give it. WASD really oughta become the new standard for ARPGs going forward.
+ Voice acting sounds good, although a language I do not understand.
- Its most glaring con is that many game systems were evidently made by someone who does not understand how roguelites/ARPGs and
metafaggotryoptimization works. Examples galore:- The levels are static, never changing throughout runs. It actually took me a few runs to nootice because that's like, the most basic expectation for a roguelike, but once I noticed my enjoyment fell off a cliff; I have no idea how you sustain interest in such a game without at least a token effort at procedural generation. This alone is a black mark on the game in general.
- The starting skill variety is far too limited, and more skills only open after beating Act 1 (which took me most of the ~6 hours), at which point your interest may or may not be gone. Mine certainly was.
- Gear is permanent and you do not lose it between runs, but the only things it gives (as of Act 1-2) is flat stat bonuses - HP for body armor, base damage for weapons, movement speed on boots etc. There is no variety, every slot is literally one stat, and the only upgrade is number go up. For an ARPG this is a fatal shortcoming; they even know how to do it,
Sanctumrelics (your other kind of equipment) are properly random and roll affixes! Maybe this gets better later, but with no actual stash for gear (how?!) I highly doubt it.- The skill tree contains passives that increase dismantling yield and make upgrading relics/gear cheaper - forever dooming your autism to respec every time you upgrade your shit or clear out your stash if you want to make the most of it. For extra aggravation, the only respec option is to reset your tree entirely instead of deallocating points one by one.
- [cw: autistic rage] Mechanics are extremely hit or miss, due to the limited skill variety you are more or less corralled into a few working builds early on. Bleeding specifically is an outright scam: the mechanic is lifted straight out of Last Epoch so I quickly figured out how to work it, but I noticed I am not doing nearly as much single-target damage as I expected to. Bleeds just didn't seem to stick to bosses despite gazillion small hits per second, and at the Act 1 boss (and after a bit of googling) I finally realized why: bleed damage is unrelated to the hit that applies it, but bleed chance somehow still directly depends on it - bleed chance is greatly reduced the less damage you deal relative to total HP! My only damaging mechanic is directly countered by an affix-less wall of HP, the kind that bleeds are supposed to be good at killing in the first place! Spending literally 15 minutes to plink the boss to death due to my main damage source ceasing to work was the final straw, I alt-f4'd out of the game shortly after.
This actually gave me painful flashbacks so if any mottizen ever makes an ARPG, carve this insight into your psyche: any damage mechanic that can plausibly be played as main DPS must never be entirely negated by things outside the player's control! Leave damage immunities in 2000 where they belong! None of that "500% bleed resistance for undead" muh realism bullshit! Even
Chris fucking WilsonJonathan fucking Rogers, the king of player-hostile game design, figured out this part immediately following PoE2's release!- The admittedly novel setting of 19th-century Brazilian badlands appears to mostly cash out into incessant glazing of the Canudos, victims of the eponymous massacre. I suppose alt-history is a perfectly cromulent narrative device, but by the time I encountered... checks notes Head-Cutter (in actual, literal hell!) I completely checked out of the narrative, it is impossible to take seriously. This kind of hamfisted political narrative never fails to give me the ick regardless of subject matter; I know nothing about the Canudos but I will be entirely unsurprised if they were actually some sort of horrible militant sect with plenty of chips on their shoulders that required direct gov't intervention to root out.
((Out of curiosity, does somebody know of a game extolling the virtues of jingoistic imperialism and brutal colonisation? Off the top my head I only recall Broforce and New Vegas: Sneering Imperialist edition.))
In short, I did not entirely hate Hell Clock but it wore out its welcome remarkably quickly and I am glad I picked up the uh, extended demo version from the high seas instead of buying it. Just play Tiny Rogues or something instead.
More options
Context Copy link