Why doesn't someone just make a new DnD by another name, sufficiently different to evade IP laws but similar enough in essence. It's not like DnD is difficult to create since most of it's imaginary anyway. DnD seems like the easiest woke garbage to sidestep.
In case anyone wasn't aware, in Ontario our public "healthcare" will not pay for:
- Almost all dental work
- Almost all vision care
- Physiotherapy
- Medication
- Hearing care
What Ontario "healthcare" will pay for:
- Penis-sparing vaginoplasty
"Yes, you really are a woman. As a healthcare practitioner, I'll remove your penis."
"Yes, you really are just a torso. As a healthcare practitioner, I'll remove your legs and pelvis."
"Yes, you really are obese. As a healthcare practitioner, I will administer more liposuction and recommend you continue vomiting up all your meals until you're 80 lbs."
"Yes, you really can hear voices in your head. As a healthcare practitioner, I won't intervene when they tell you it's okay to kill other people."
Is a movie the measure of being iconic? Or even general public awareness? I don't think so. There's a Rampage movie but I think, e.g., Samus is more iconic than any of the characters in that film.
Sony pumped out multiple commercials for Crash Bandicoot and were clearly trying to push him as the face of PlayStation when the system first came out. Some commercials had references to Mario, suggesting they saw Crash as PlayStation's Mario. I don't recall anything like that for Tomb Raider.
Tomb Raider's ultimately had more sales though, especially with the newer games, so you could be right. I still think Crash was more influential in establishing the PlayStation brand, and I find Croft too generic to be "iconic."
Thanks for actually providing reasons for your disagreement, by the way.
Edit: I guess I wrote known quantity when originally the discussion was about being iconic. Bad choice of words.
"You have to remove liberty to fight those who would remove liberty from you."
I think it's more like if someone would deny you a liberty, you don't need to extend that liberty to them even if you want it. People who don't want freedom of speech, well... fuck their speech then.
How is this a real case? Everyone here knows that sufficiently bad poor parenting is criminal, it's why the charge of criminal negligence exists at all...