Because it's not about sexualizing adolescents. It's about aging and still finding older people attractive.
https://www.healthline.com/health/second-puberty#when-it-happens
ToastedPlanet
joined 2 years ago
That's because we are having a meta discussion about a meta discussion. To put it another way, we are engaged in a self-referencing discussion. To talk about such a discussion in solely general terms would render the rhetoric useless to anyone outside of academics. We would have to write in completely mathematical terms.
Again, it's not laziness, but off topic. The term in essay writing is paragraph drift, but since it would be off topic for the article as a whole a more accurate term might be article drift.
A hypothetical complaint about cat memes not getting mainstream coverage is a meta discussion about coverage not cat memes.
The point about bringing up Concord's flop is that it in particular is comparable to other media that the mainstream news does report on, such as expensive movie flops, but it still isn't being covered. Why Concord flopped has nothing to do with that and that kind of context wouldn't add anything to the article's central point. The article also uses Joker 2 as an example, but doesn't go into why Joker 2 flopped for the same reason. Why Concord flopped would be as off topic as taking about Concord's game play mechanics, while possibly interesting, they aren't relevant to the discussion either. Just because Concord's flop is relevant to this discussion doesn't mean all things related to Concord are relevant.
These kind of meta discussions about media coverage are important as they are a self-examination of a critical institution. A self-referential discussion is its own kind of genre and has its own rules, or guidelines, for what it is and isn't relevant. So it's definitely important that people understand that and don't mistake this useful kind of journalism as lazy. Trying to placate this misunderstanding would render the article less rhetorically effective on delivering its central point. It's like Paul's analogy in Dune. He shouldn't have to cut his dominate hand off to please his space jihadists. That wouldn't be useful. edit: typo
the most important thing is that it’s not supposed to be like that in a democracy. It all boils down to the system in USA being flawed.
My argument's point is that this is useful rhetorical shorthand, but there are uniformed people who don't know what it is short for. Posts like this are a useful way to educate those people, so they can use and understand that shorthand. Especially when we are this close to the election and these kinds of questions are on peoples' minds. edit: typo
The point of the article is that Concord's flop not getting coverage is a symptom of a larger problem. Considering it was a $400 million flop after refunds, the lack of coverage is particularly striking. But why Concord flopped isn't relevant to the meta discussion of video games not being covered by the mainstream media in general.
In general terms, the article is about story x not being covered by mainstream media outlets, not story x. The analogy that comes to mind is when someone accuses the mainstream media of not covering a topic (even if the mainstream media actually is covering it). The person making the accusation doesn't typically go into the topic they want covered, because that's not really the topic they are trying to discuss.
The article is about how mainstream media covers video games, or often doesn't. Not video games. Talking in terms of specific video games highlights the problem with examples and makes the article less general. Saying something like story x is quite useful for an internet comment, but would look weird in an internet article. edit: typo
No more explanation needed.
This is a question a user posted in another thread.
While I understand their suppressions are an attack on democracy and an attempt to make voting more difficult, why does it disproportionately affect Democrats? Are Republicans just more willing to jump through loops?
I have seen many similar questions and discussions on Reddit in the past before I switched to Lemmy. When one person asks a question it's safe to assume there are more people with the same question, but aren't asking.
Over the course of the year, accelerationist rhetoric has run rampant on Lemmy. People need to know that no matter where they live their vote is desperately needed. Republicans have the advantage in our flawed democracy. The Republican strategy is to sow doubt about the election so they can overturn the results. The closer the count is whether that be the total popular vote count nationwide, a statewide count, a countywide count, or even one polling station's count, the more likely that is to happen. So every vote matters no matter where a person lives.
Excluding things like yelling, doing the wave, or hitting noise sticks together, for the fans, sports are a passive experience. The fans have no real way to interact with a sport to determine a game's outcome. A person playing a soccer video game has control of one of the teams and their inputs determine how well that team does.
A news organization can play a clip of a soccer game and the experience is not that different than watching the game live. It's not even that different from being at a stadium, besides being quieter.
If a news organization played a clip of someone playing a soccer video game they would run into a problem. While the graphics might be impressive, the interactive nature of the video game is completely lost on the viewer. The news viewers seeing that clip aren't experiencing controlling a soccer team. edit: The experience would not even be that different from watching a clip of a real soccer game.
Video games have to be experienced firsthand. People who have never played video games or barely played video games probably aren't going to get it when shown a secondhand account.
Articles tend to cover a single topic in order to keep the writing focused. Kotaku, the website the article is hosted on, is a video game website and blog. It has covered Concord extensively.
https://kotaku.com/search?blogId=9&q=Concord×tamp=1729444691620
Here is one article that covers it flopping a week after launch.
https://kotaku.com/concord-flop-low-player-count-steam-psn-sales-fps-ps5-1851631800
Here is another with users' reacting. edit: typo
https://kotaku.com/concord-shutdown-playstation-offline-delisted-store-1851638956
States' Senate and House seats are added together to calculate the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College. The Senate is well known for overrepresenting low population states because each state gets 2 seats regardless of their population. Because the House of Representatives has been capped at 435 seats it also overrepresents low population states. These 538 interactive graphs do a good job of visualizing that. edit: there are two graphs
That's because the article is about the lack of coverage of Concord's flop and gaming in general in mainstream news not Concord.
Each state's Electoral College vote total is a combination of their House and Senate seats. Low population states are overrepresented in the Senate because each state gets two seats no matter their population. The House of Representatives has been capped at 435 seats which means lower populated states tend to be overrepresented there as well.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/435-representatives/
Republicans tend to do well in rural areas which typically have low populations. Democrats tend to do well in cities which typically have high populations. This pans out to Democrats wining states that have high populations and Republicans winning states with low populations.
Since Republican voters tend to be from areas with low population they tend to be overrepresneted in the Electoral College. This means Democrats need high voter turnout to compensate for their voters being underrepresented. This is how Trump won the Electoral College in 2016 despite losing the popular vote.
Now you are ready to enter... the Gungeon
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And this is the beholder so stop worrying about what the beholder thinks.