I think you'll find that most games, if not all, released before 2016 do not broach most of the contemporary issues that annoy you in particular.
I like Paradox games like Crusader Kings and Stellaris. They allow for political gameplay without focusing on the contemporary hot-button issues that bother you.
If you are looking for modern RPG releases, consider Elden Ring, Divinity: Original Sin 2, Mount and Blade II, Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Dark Souls III, or Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous.
Look, when I wrote that original post, I was mostly thinking of how I have zero desire to play Disco Elysium because I don't think being lectured by Marxists for 50 hours on material I'm already familiar with makes for a particularly interesting week. Thus, I do not intend to play the alleged "greatest RPG of all time" Disco Elysium. I also don't feel the need to demand my views be accounted for in the work.
I have no intention of playing Disco Elysium either, but I have to be honest, a game which is just naked Marxist propaganda is fine in my view and the attitude "Don't play it if you don't like it" is far more reasonable. The issue with a game like BG3 is that the overall plot and gameplay is not intrinsically political and plenty of people might be interested in playing it regardless of political outlook, but they unnecessarily crowbarred contentious and slanted politics into regardless. It is particularly egregious when it is a successor to a series which did nothing of the kind.
I don't mind explicitly political games being political. What I do object to is having a ham fisted political lecture inserted into a game which is not marketed as such and which I am otherwise interested in playing. Its particularly annoying when it goes only one way. Lets take a non political issue. Imagine if there were a sub plot or two that promoted scatological sexual practices as an active good and you were presented with no reasonable way to object in game. Could you see why some people might find this objectionable? Would people raising those objections be making unwarranted demands to have their views represented, or would this be entirely reasonable feedback?
Referring back to the quest I mentioned in another post, where refugees literally steal a guy's home and refuse to leave when asked, why is there no dialogue option to reflect the view refugees are recalcitrant lawbreaking scumbags and you are removing them for what you believe to be entirely moral reasons? You have the option either to let them get away with wanton criminality or be very obviously the bad guy. Aside from being absurdly biased, its just plain dumb.
