Laticauda

Bro they don't share ANY similarities. Saying they're similar because they all have "lots of sidequests" or "DLCs" is like saying Lord of the rings and Arthur Christmas are similar movies because they both have elves and an older mentor figure. I'm sorry but that's just beyond ridiculous. Especially since you don't seem to have any idea what their DLCs contain. And no I'm not saying that because I like all of those games, I only ever really got into botw, the other 3 either didn't catch my attention or I tried them and couldn't get into them, but I still know enough to know that calling them similar in this context is delusional, the only thing they vaguely share is the open world genre. They are extremely different games you couldn't have chosen more different examples if you tried, I can think of a ton of non open world games that have more similarities with each.

"every game looks exactly the same" proceeds to list 4 games that could not be more different from each other lmfao. You have to be trolling.

No I don't think people who use the word "digger" are specifically and purposefully altering the N word and directly referencing it.

By that logic any smaller predator that feeds on small animals is a "cat" and any large predator that feeds on larger animals and/or hunts in packs is a "dog" which is... Not at all how nature works. Foxes are canines that exhibit a lot of classic canine behaviour and very little cat behaviour in top of many behaviours unique to foxes, domestic cats are not actually solitary creatures just solitary hunters hence why they develop colonies, some wolf species are solitary hunters such as the maned wolf, birds of prey also fill the same ecological niche as cats, as do weasels, chimpanzees are also apex pack hunting mammals too but no one would ever say they're running "dog software", heck humans are the ultimate Apex pack hunting predator, does that mean wolves are just running "human software"? Lions and hyenas exhibit completely different behaviours and social structures from both domestic dogs and cats as well as each other, lions also aren't the only large cats that hunt in groups, cheetahs can as well when they form a coalition. It just seems like a dumb way to classify animals as if dogs and cats aren't extremely diverse and complex animals in their own right and instead every member has to be forced into these awkward and inaccurate "hardware vs software" stereotypes.

I mean, if you can find a way to harness it, it sounds like the perfect way to banish enemies to the shadow realm.

Saving the kid from cavities.

Foxes don't share all that many behaviours with cats though, they share more with dogs, so I don't know why people always say this.

What would the D even stand for? 🤔

Stuff like this is part of why I dropped out of multimedia production in college, I only enjoy that stuff as a hobby for myself, doing it for other people is a creative nightmare lol

That's an entirely different argument, and not the argument you were making. You are claiming they are antisemitic because they don't like religion, when being antisemitic is absolutely not the same thing as being anti-religion. And being anti-liberal isn't the same thing as hating gay people just because they're a majority liberal group of people, there are conservative gay people too believe it or not, that's a false equivalence. Also gay people don't choose to be gay, but religion or politics is not something you're born with and are unable to change, religion/politics are willful beliefs and practices and something you choose to be a part of, if you have an issue with hating religion as a whole that's fine you can have that opinion, but argue that instead of making baseless accusations, and use an appropriate argument instead of comparing being gay to being religious. If they'd singled out people who are ethnically Jewish at any point then maybe you'd have half a leg to stand on with that comparison, but they're not talking about ethnically Jewish people they're talking about religion in general, and it's possible to be ethnically Jewish without being religious. Hell they never even named Judaism explicitly in their original comment. It is canon to most mainstream Christian beliefs that Jesus was a Jewish person killed by other Jewish people, whether you like it or not, if you have a problem with that take it up with Christianity but that's not the other commenter's fault.

There are a LOT of very good reasons for someone to hate religion as a whole that have absolutely nothing to do with being antisemitic. And I'm saying that as someone who doesn't hate religion myself, though I can understand why some people do, especially since I'm a member of the lgbt community.

"it wasn't the Romans it was the Jews" is also a fact of the most mainstream versions of Christian/Catholic beliefs. It's also a fact of their beliefs that Jesus himself was Jewish, and I was taught both of those things when growing up in a religious school system without ever being taught to blame or hate Jewish people for it because Jewish people were also regularly victims of oppression in the bible being saved whether by Moses or God himself or others. Someone using it as an example of religious infighting doesn't automatically mean it's being used as an antisemitic argument. Whether you take issue with how that account of events came to exist historically isn't the fault of the other commenter, it is still part of the mythos as most people know it, and the conversation was referring specifically to the mythos. Jesus forgiving his own people and telling god "they know not what they do" is kind of an important aspect of his sacrifice and martyrdom.