Anti-Censorship as a Game of Tower Defence

 Bloons, or maybe [they are billions]. The idea is to never attack the root cause, because then you can't keep playing the game. 

 P.S. When I was a tiny idiot I played Warcraft like a TD: defend as efficiently as possible until the enemy ran out of gold and I could attack without retaliation. Absolute risk minimization. An extremely boring and time-consuming way to play, but there it is. 

 All political issues work by assiduously failing to attack the root cause, ensuring the problem will re-occur. You might perhaps forgive them as the root cause is that taxation is a crime, hardly an easy dragon* to slay, but Reality runs on strict liability. That is: you might forgive them, but Existence will not. Profanity is profanity. Sin is sin.

*(Dragons are of course good, not bad, but it amuses me to use the set phrase anyway.) 

 They can't solve the problems because they were never seriously trying to solve them in the first place. The ineffectiveness is intentional; they refuse to give up ineffectiveness, because it would violate their core value. The core value being to continue the game. They want to play tower defence, trying to ward off the hordes, which means they need a horde-generator. Looks to me like they're trying to impress daddy. Want him to praise how hard they worked. At best.

 Unlike tiny idiot me, they don't want the enemy to run out of gold. Like Israel vs. Hamas, if the opponent runs low on money they will hand it to them under the table. Not to mention USG vs. Mexican drug cartels. They work very hard to look like they want to play the game like I do, but literally never take the opportunity to do so when it arises.

 I think they regularly pull their punches and avoid putting up towers that are too strong. Can't discourage the enemy too much, nor cost them too much money. They could just be amazingly incompetent, I suppose, but then the pro-black-government forces would lose occasionally, when they were having an especially off day. You only get consistent battle and contest if the opponent is matching the handicap. Similar to that one kind of spar.

 Really we find over and over that Republicants are masochists. They're trying to lose. They desperately snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
 You might forgive them for wanting to attack the root issue and failing to find a path, but they're not trying. They not only don't want to attack the root issue, they want to defend the root issue. 

 We find over and over that Americans are supplied tyranny because they demand tyranny.

 

 

 

 P.P.S. When I was a tiny idiot asshole, instead of some asshole on the internet, I did enjoy constructing a phalanx formation in Warcraft. It solved the control group issue since the idea was nobody would move. Also solved: can select only 4 units. The enemy would simply suicide into my formation until they could Canadian Healthcare themselves no more, requiring only that I reset the phalanx after they were dead and maybe heal a few frontliners.

 One of the things I learned was the extreme power of range overmatch. The only thing which caused any gold loss to my phalanx formation was when they used the same max-range (9) units as I was using: catapults. Couldn't kill them before they attack.

 I should have also noticed the power of burst damage, but I didn't. Average DPS doesn't matter if you use cooldown rather than windup, because you can cool down before the battle starts. 

 IRL the strategy is a lot better. Defensive war is stronger than offensive war. You can let the enemy exhaust themselves, then walk over and stop them from doing it again. 

 P.P.P.S. Come to think that's probably why Blizzard went down the APM rathole. The correct way to play Warcraft 1 and 2 is through huge APM, because there's no control groups and minimal automation, and when they could afford to make the units not-stupid they, uh, just didn't. Moron units and jank control were traditional - rather than fixing these issues, they doubled down.