People like Eric Weinstein explain why all the time: Jews frequently consider themselves "strangers in a strange land" and therefore are sympathetic to other outsider groups and as a result advocate for inclusive "big tent" policies.
And people ignore it because it is damn hard to believe. They're suposed to be smart, how come they can't see that there is no redeeming themselves in the eyes of their sworn enemies? This really sounds like the kind of explanation you don't even believe yourself, that you spit out when you feel like you have to say something. If anything, Weinstein sounds like he's trying to convince himself when he says that.
So it was indeed "journalists stirring shit". Good, news! Regarding DLCs, I think Imperator was sort of a good lesson to them about how they shouldn't release a game that's too barebones. The DDs seem promising so far.
Wait for steam reviews, 100%, of course.
That plus the Deus Vult removal snafus are indeed rather worrying signs. However, those were largely the result of presstitutes trying to stir shit up. Reading the dev diaries I didnt notice too many red flags. I think PDX know their customer base(at least what fraction of it always plays Imperium of man in stellaris or Norse reformation in CK2) and are trying to not piss it off. So I'm cautioulsy optimistic. Still, I'm waiting for steam reviews(and/or the first Wrongthink shitstorm) before buying.
Yeah, that was somewhat annoying. But then again, it was one of the only moments.
Also its sort of explained that if you chose her, Skellige would eventally lose what makes it Skellige, and turn into just another realm like the ones on the continent. That in itself is quite a decent couterpoint to the other dude being a bit of a moron.
Actually, It somewhat annoyed me in Arcanum too. Its just that, at the time, those politics weren't being shoved into us through every hole, so it just didnt really annoy me enough to matter.
If politics has always been in games then why does it bother me so much now, what actually changed?
IMO, There is one crucial question regarding politics in games : "Does the writer make the player feel bullied into the picking the writer's favorite side?". The answer is, unfortunaltely, quite subjective. However, if the player can pick either choice and feel like the game has treated him fairly with the natural consequences of that choice, then its politics done right.
That answer sounds too absolute and simplistic to be correct, IMO. Totally subjective opinion here.
It makes zero evolutionary sense to topple a power structure that you're largely at the top of.
Not saying I have a better explanation, but I'm not convinced by this one. Its like saying gravity comes from gravity gremlins. Maybe, I don't know how it works, but it just doesnt pass my sniff test.