Apparently you don't understand since rights != outcome.

Exactly, except that is exactly what a lot of 'progressives' advocate, to treat subsets differently based on those arbitrary characteristics. Things like quotas, double standards ("Blacks can't be racist"), X only areas, the cultural appropriation BS, and on and on.

Depends on what you mean by "social equality". If you mean fighting for equal outcomes, then no. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite as humans are inherently a varied species and expecting equal outcomes is thus illogical, and enforcing such unjust. Even an extreme version of equality of opportunity I would argue is bad as well as to get a perfect equality of opportunity would pretty much eliminate all forms of individuality.

For me, highest on that list is Deus Ex. God damn, people claim this game is awesome, and I really don't like it. Almost every system in the game is subpar, not for today, no, for the time it was released. It's graphic, blah. It's AI is HORRENDUOUS. It's stealth game play is a bad joke. It's RPG elements are awful. Its gun play is terrible. The only element where it does respectibly well is in level design, but everything else about the game is a train wreck.

Halo, distant 2nd place, but another game I just don't see the appeal. I guess it is because I'm not a multiplayer person, but people make a big deal about the single player too, and I thought it was awful. Repetitive levels, repeated levels, and just a boring plot.

Distant 3rd place, System Shock 2. I like SS2 but it's not that special honestly. Still better than Deus Ex by a mile, but even when it was new to the market, I felt it was disappointing. A decent enough game that I got some enjoyment from, but I never felt any inclination to replay it.

In 4th place, this time right on the heels though, FF7. I never saw the charm of this game. Sure it was 3D, but said 3D was pretty bad. Didn't like the combat system. Plot was convoluted. It was just okay, nothing special.

And in 5th place, a dishonorable mention goes to Black and White. I HATE this game. It is awful! But, it doesn't rate higher because it is pretty niche to start with and I don't see much praise for it. You know a game is bad when you end up reading a book while you're playing to get some entertainment.

And finally, ignoring the Classic restriction, the modern 'classic' game that I think is grossly overrated goes to BoTW. I think it one of the weakest recent Zeldas. Poorly balanced, uninteresting, with numerous terrible design decisions, I seriously wonder what people think is so great about it. I forced myself through it to see this wonderful game people were claiming it was and in the end I never want to see that piece of *bleep* ever again. So F'ing disappointing.

Edit:

Oh, I forgot one, Homeworld. I was so mislead on this game. It was supposed to have this awesome story, BS. It was supposed to have this awesome gameplay, also BS. It was just plain bad.

Nothing, and it is particularly annoying as it is completely counter to the other desires of people making a big deal about it, namely having equality. You can't have equality if the cultures of group A and group B are different, as that culture alone will push differences. You would want one mono culture. But of course, this is just par for the course for people that don't understand that equality and diversity are opposing concepts.

Moving the goalposts are we? That was never the argument. They are interfering with private citizens, those citizens are employers. Like I said to LJ, did employers stop being citizens? No, obviously they didn't, so stop trying to dodge. And by threatening those employers with prosecution for cooperating with ICE voluntarily, California officials are restricting federal investigators, they are just doing so through a 3rd party.

Then your understanding isn't fully correct. The SB 54 issue could be argued to be that although even this one is iffy but it definitely has the case law to put up a good argument, but the AB 103 is about California officials inspecting federal facilities, and AB 450 is about California penalizing Employers who cooperate with federal officials rather than demanding a warrant and being forced to tell employees about upcoming inspections or results of said inspections both well ahead of time, neither of which are asking state officials to do federal work.

@LJS9502_basic: Since when did employers become non citizens?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/7/17088144/california-lawsuit-sanctuary-immigration-law-doj

"AB 450: the workplace-raid law. Just like the DOJ is suing to let law enforcement cooperate more broadly with federal agents with its challenge to SB 54, it’s suing to let employers cooperate with federal agents during workplace raids or audits. The feds are suing to strike down provisions that prevent employers from letting ICE agents access “nonpublic areas” of the workplace during raids or giving ICE agents access to employee records without a judicial warrant. (Though ICE agents would still be allowed to look over an employer’s I-9 files, the form to verify an employee’s ability to work in the US legally.)

And it’s suing to stop employers from having to notify their employees within 72 hours of getting a notice of inspection of I-9 files from ICE and notify them again within 72 hours of getting the results if the employee has been flagged in the system as working illegally.

The DOJ argues that these restrictions “have the purpose and effect of interfering with the enforcement of the [federal] prohibition on working without authorization.”

This is basically the heart of the lawsuit: that California passed laws that are designed to stop the federal government from enforcing its laws, and that’s not permissible under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. (In a subplot, the lawsuit cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. US in 2012, which struck down parts of a state immigration enforcement law passed by Republicans who thought the Obama administration was shirking its duty on immigration.)

In the federal government’s view, “California has no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens to evade federal law enforcement.” But California, of course, argues it does: that protecting the safety and well-being of California residents means forcing ICE to meet higher standards of due process before engaging in actions that can affect not only unauthorized immigrants but legal immigrants and US citizens. And this is where the real divide lies."

Yes, they need warrants WHEN NOT INVITED. This isn't a restriction on the officials, it is a restriction on the private citizen cooperating with the officials voluntarily. And yes it is active obstruction to prevent people from doing such. The only fascism going on here is from the California official restricting the rights of the owners.