Youtube comments of Crazy Eyes (@CrizzyEyes).
-
6900
-
3300
-
2400
-
2200
-
1100
-
841
-
828
-
572
-
515
-
495
-
491
-
481
-
436
-
423
-
391
-
379
-
347
-
342
-
319
-
308
-
297
-
280
-
270
-
265
-
229
-
225
-
223
-
187
-
187
-
185
-
182
-
168
-
166
-
165
-
155
-
155
-
153
-
150
-
149
-
148
-
139
-
139
-
133
-
129
-
127
-
126
-
125
-
120
-
120
-
116
-
114
-
113
-
112
-
105
-
104
-
98
-
97
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
94
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
88
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
83
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
71
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
See, I've played the OG games, and Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights -- all the RTwP "greats" that the obnoxious purists have also played. But I never liked the games because of RTwP, I liked it in spite of that. It's just so fucking fiddly. For example: oops, I clicked to move at second 6.1 instead of 5.9, so I just lost my action for that 6-second round. In my opinion, the system is a crutch to support lazily designed encounters. Now, these games did have some memorable encounters, don't get me wrong... but the majority of them (especially in NWN) were just groups of trash mobs. RTwP makes this part of the game -- the boring part -- go faster.
The difference is Larian's design philosophy. They try to make sure every encounter has a purpose, and that none of them are too similar or feature boring enemies. There are very few boring encounters in the game and even the low level mobs have at least one ability you need to watch out for. RTwP is fundamentally not needed because you aren't trudging through the prison district of Neverwinter killing naked prisoner dudes every 5 feet. If I had to kill all those shit mobs in turn-based, yeah, that would get annoying quickly. The real solution here is to not design annoying encounters, not to use a half-assed timing system that bastardizes the source rules.
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
@apeekintime I'm pretty sure the mere thought of that would make John Carmack puke. He is the one who advocated putting their games out as open source after a nominal period, which virtually no other game dev does. You can go out there and look at Doom and Quake source code right now if you want to learn how to write C code. He also specifically designed Doom to be modded with the .WAD file format.
Funnily enough, Carmack also invented smooth scrolling on PC games, which at the time were notoriously bad for platform ports because they did not smoothly scroll the screen as in an NES or arcade machine; instead it was Zelda 1 style, where the screen refreshed all at once when you reached the end of the screen. He approached Nintendo, offering to port Super Mario Bros. to the PC, but they turned him down. So he used the tech to make Commander Keen instead, id's first successful game series.
Sorry for the rant, but in short, it would be cosmic justice if id Software screwed over Nintendo, even though id in the early 90s would never have done that.
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
Heinlein's novel doesn't really depict Fascism. The idea of a hardcore meritocratic state in which you must serve in the military to vote seems ghastly to us now, but strictly speaking, it simply isn't Fascism, just an idea that could potentially coexist with Fascism. Heinlein toys with the idea because he was frustrated with genuinely awful decisions made by civilians in our government during the Cold War, and had served in the military himself.
Fascism is kind of a flash-in-the-pan ideology that has little to no relevance today, because it is by its very origin a reaction to Communism. However, the things that Fascist states had in common were:
- a body of voters who are completely desperate and faced with choosing between radical ideologies in the wake of a weak sitting government before the Fascists arrive
- a call back to the most glorious period in that nation's or people's history and a claim to be able to return to that former glory
- seizing the means of production, not unlike Communism, to both modernize and control industry (remember, Fascism was relevant when most of Europe still needed to industrialize, badly, especially Italy)
- blaming a specific group of people for most if not all of the woes the nation currently faces (again, not unlike Communism)
- and of course, totalitarian control of the government
Helldivers depicts a government much closer to Fascism than Starship Troopers. However, my personal theory is that it is a plutocracy run by defense and arms contractors that manufacture reasons to go to war to perpetuate their own profits. It explains why the government seems to wage war so inefficiently; it's like the mistakes and ulterior motives that came up with the F-35 taken into overdrive, and put in control of the entire human species for a few hundred years.
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
I think porn is only a piece of this problem. There are those, like myself, who see porn as a mechanical ritual. We acknowledge that porn is completely unrealistic, but we consume it anyway, because we're single, so might as well -- as long as it doesn't deteriorate to the point where we cannot function daily. I personally don't consume extreme content and keep my taste as grounded as possible.
Something happened to me not very long ago that changed my perspective on this. I met a girl I was actually infatuated with. They come across quite rarely for me. The moment that happened, I lost all motivation to consume pornography. About a week after she told me she was not interested in dating, I returned to my old habits. So I can't empathize with anyone who is so addicted to porn that they find no interest in real sex.
My problem, and I imagine there are more like me out there, is that romantic relationships seem like an unintelligent risk. Most of our modern history leading up to now has taught us this lesson. Divorce rates are extremely high, and divorce is extremely punishing for the male, which I happen to be. There is the obvious risk of becoming involved with a mentally unstable person that tries to ruin your life. However, there is an even worse, more insidious risk; a relationship of complete mediocrity and dissatisfaction. The idea that I'd waste 2+ years of time with someone only to find out I'm not really interested in them any more, or perhaps because they stopped putting effort in once they felt comfortable, is quite soul-crushing. That idea has kept me trapped for my entire life.
Perhaps my romantic drive just isn't high enough. Perhaps I'm just picky. And no, most of my criteria do not involve appearance -- my friends always told me that I find women attractive that they wouldn't. But this is how my mindset approaches this problem.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@felixwinkler6450 Again, Fascism is a very specific political ideology made in a very specific historical context (an Italian politician being fed up with Marxism). Fascists would romanticize it as the ideology of "truth," but to them truth is a brutally Darwinist authoritarian society where in each person does the job they were "made" to do. In other words, if your father was a carpenter, the state will mandate that you should be a carpenter because they believe it's what you'll be best at. It is essentially a way to lock down social structures for the "good" of the state. Broad-brushing it as all reactions to leftism is incorrect and unhelpful, and it also makes you look ignorant. This is why political dialogue has broken down in the United States, because those who know what Fascism is find the comparison ridiculous, and influential figures have made it a talking point for years. Discriminatory policies are ancient indeed and have nothing to do with Fascism. There are many ways to react to leftism; anarchism, for example, is always an option. In a parallel universe United States, hereditary monarchy might have became romanticized again and we might see a significant political group advocating for that. We just happened to get this one instead.
I would urgently warn you about falling into the idiotic left-right paradigm. The real influencer in this nation, and the world at large, is money. In fact the left-right paradigm was initially created to describe economic policy and nothing else. If you follow the money, you'll discover quickly that it belongs in the hands of international corporations and international bankers. An international entity need not have any loyalty to a particular nation, especially when they have so much money. These people become bad actors in our midst, lobbying for policies that are detrimental to people at large for the sake of their own pockets. To put it simply, the left-right paradigm is a divide and conquer strategy. The real political war at hand is between competing corporate influences, but they have virtually no ideology and their effects on the common people are virtually the same, so it is not worth rooting for any one or the other.
It is not really a conspiracy as they are not really working together for the end goal of rubbing their hands and spiting common people. People who believe in such a conspiracy are egotistical and believe they are more important than they really are; corporations and bankers do not care. They have no desire to be saddled down with all of the costs and effort of running a nation or its people. It is more like a disjointed series of bribes taken by short-sighted politicians from differing sources who think "what's the worst that could happen?" and the end result for 99% of people looks the same, so some assume it is a conspiracy. Ironically short-sightedness and disorganization is what allows this to happen, not a grandiose intertwined conspiracy.
As for Trumpism evolving, I'm not sure what you mean because as I stated in my last post, Trump's policies are not very different to others in the bigger picture of American history. You've already agreed that the US, despite having openly racist policies in the past, was not Fascist. So I'm not sure where the Fascism in Trump comes from since his policies could broadly be described as an attempt to return to 1960s America. To this day we are one of the only nations with birthright citizenship; which is to say, all you need to do to be a citizen, is to be born within our borders. That's pretty progressive in my opinion. Perhaps the more appropriate word would be "devolution" since it would be more like a return to an older period in US history. That is in essence what conservatism is, the belief that older policies were better and a desire to return to them or preserve them, and a stricter interpretation of the Constitution usually goes hand-in-hand with that.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Almost all monsters used by D&D are public domain. There are some exceptions, like otyughs and beholders, but it's easy enough to write those out or create knock offs. You will find orcs, giants, trolls, minotaurs, ogres, goblins, kobolds, dark elves, undead, and many varieties of giant insect, arachnid, reptile and mammal, in almost every fantasy TTRPG setting out there.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Tiger Tamer First of all, proper punishment is never delivered in anger. You described abuse just by the very nature of the fact that the adult was angry. Second of all, Pavlovian conditioning is real, and if someone you love is insistent on doing bad behavior that may ruin their life (like masturbating in public) over and over again with no signs of stopping no matter what else you have tried, then it's understandable that someone would spank their child just to establish the connection in their brain that, if they masturbate in public, they will be spanked. A small amount of pain now is worth preventing someone from ruining their own life as long as it works, and a small amount is all that is necessary to create the knee-jerk instinct of "oh wait, I shouldn't be doing that now." Your assertion that this pain cannot be delivered to the child without the adult being angry is completely fallacious. If you want to be really pessimistic about it, it is a form of brainwashing. But as a person who grew up with a lot of bad habits, these things can be very necessary to break them depending on your personality.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@pravda9646 China is a paper tiger man. They don't have a working aircraft carrier. You shouldn't buy into their propaganda, they have an entire culture developed around saving face and barking way louder than they can bite. They are compelled to talk shit. Russia would be a far greater threat, they can actually develop technology that counters ours (see the drone-killing beams). They're also competing with us for oil and have their own oil reserves.
Honestly it blows me away that people think China is a superpower. What basis do you have for this? They talk a lot of shit and bully the nations around them sometimes? So what? To be blunt the only reason their economy is growing is because our private sector is way too greedy and short-sighted to stop taking advantage of their market. It's a problem with our own internal politics, rather than an advantage China has. If we were to stop doing that and buckle down, like in WW2, they would slide down the shitter immediately. Their big advantage is their population; cheap labor and lots of people to buy your products. If you stop selling there and stop opening factories there, what do they have? Since they cannot compete for the resources already taken by the US and Russia, they are trying to develop Africa, a lost cause we abandoned in the first part of the 20th century. Good luck with that. As bad as Chinese engineering is, their own engineers frequently complain about having to work in Africa. They have a decent science sector but when trying to apply theory to practice, their government and manufacturing sector fucks everything up beyond belief. It's like that classic Looney Tunes gag where you see an amazing new house on a blueprint, then you lower the blueprint and look at the finished project and it's a wooden shed that's falling apart.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@NicholasW943 female Custodes and female SM cheapen the setting in general. WH40k is supposed to be a tragic setting. the tragedy of the Emperor is that he was the greatest human that ever lived, but he was still fallible and made serious errors, enough errors for him to ultimately fail his mission. one of those problems is the fact that he was seemingly incapable of producing a gene-seed that would take with women, although, depending on your interpretation, it was by design so that the Space Marines could not reproduce and eventually form their own nation. perhaps a good choice considering what happened during the Horus Heresy. but then again, you could argue that the Heresy could have been avoided through other means.
either way, it cheapens the setting greatly by removing the need to ask, "why?" when one hears that Space Marines/Custodes are only male, the natural human response is to ask "why." this is literally what makes a setting more in-depth and interesting. when one hears that SM/Custodes can be either sex, one simply shrugs their shoulders and moves on. the entire first paragraph I wrote in this comment wouldn't exist. the line of inquiry stops, and so does a writer's need to provide reasoning. the question of Space Marine sex restrictions is actually so important that it informs a huge amount of the decisions in the setting; for example, why the Adeptus Sororitas exist at all (if the Ecclesiarchy could summon SM they'd never need them, but the law says they cannot muster men bearing arms so they use women instead). it's not just some detail that doesn't significantly affect the setting, it is perhaps only one or two layers removed from the bedrock of the setting itself. the butterfly effect of changing this can't be understated. reams of worldbuilding would need to be retconned for the change to make sense
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@chupika6464 I hate it when people use the "well they're in a tough spot" argument as if the only option for any company going through rough times is to resort to extremely underhanded measures. Imagine if J.K. Rowling copied and pasted somebody's Harry Potter fanfiction, uncredited, and sold it as her next book and said it was fine because it was in a license at the back of the novels. That's how absurd the new OGL is regarding custom content.
Here's a thought: How about Hasbro/WotC puts out a new product that people like? You know, the traditional way of growing a company and making money? Why not a D&D spin off board game that resembles HeroQuest? That was popular back in the day and would get more people interested in the RPG books who aren't sure if they want to commit time to writing a character and backstory, or writing a campaign.
To go back to the royalty issue: No, it's still a completely absurd amount that WotC is asking. You mention Bethesda's creation kit tool for Elder Scrolls/Fallout as a comparison point. Okay, let's use game engines as a reference. Unreal engine, the biggest engine on the market used by the biggest studios in the industry, asks for a 5% royalty after your product earns $1 million in revenue. That's FIVE, the number between four and six. For a product with a roughly 25-year history and prolific status, with extremely well paid engineers backing it. I am not suggesting that they receive no royalties at all; in fact I agree with the overall notion that WotC missed out on collecting anything from Critical Role considering how huge it got. But the numbers they suggest simply don't make sense.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@felixwinkler6450 I respect your efforts, but if you think Trump is comparable to Fascism at all, I really don't know what to tell you other than you're not done yet. Consider, for example, that before 1965 the United States operated on a strict immigration quota, and it was discriminated based on country of origin. There was literally a document that stated "yeah for this year, we want 50,000 Polish people, 50,000 Irish people, but only 25,000 Indians, fuck those guys" etc. Not with those exact numbers, but you get the idea. Do you think the US was Fascist before 1965? The problem with Trump as he is criticized in the media is that people conflate demagoguery with Fascism. They're not the same at all. Demagogues have existed since the beginning of time, while Fascism is a very specific political ideology created purely as a reaction to Communism in the 20th century. Racism is not the same as Fascism at all, either. Indeed, I believe that in a theoretical parallel universe similar to the one in The Man in the High Castle where Nazi Germany took over the US, the Ku Klux Klan would be brutally eliminated because of their anti-authoritarian, anti-foreign and anti-Catholic views. Put bluntly, they're a domestic terrorist organization that would have differing interests to the ruling party. Racism is not an ideology that unites, it is not an ideology at all. Another fun fact: When the Nazi party took power in Germany, they looked at other nations' political histories to determine their laws that would determine racial purity. They looked at the US's Jim Crow laws, which were often based on the "one-drop principle:" if there was a single ancestor in your bloodline who was black, you were black. No exceptions. They thought that was too racist so they went with a time-based criteria instead; if your bloodline was free of Jews from some year in the 19th century onward, you were considered pure. You do not need to be Fascist to be racist.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I don't actually think it's the execs fault with this phenomenon. And believe me I love to blame the suits.
Take Halo for example. Microsoft has been throwing money at people to make Halo film content for decades. None of it really "takes off," some of it like Halo Legends has a cult following, but that particular work isn't the basis for a series or franchise. The content has varied widely in style and quality so it can't be said that the execs aren't doing their job. They provide the money and greenlight the project and stand back. If they were taking a strong hand and interfering, all the content would be more or less the same, but it's not.
What's the problem is the people they hire, especially for the Halo TV series. These are people who paint themselves as professionals, people who take their job seriously. How do they tackle a well-beloved IP like Halo? They announce to everyone that they didn't play the games because "the games don't matter" (paraphrased). Typical Hollywood shitheads who think games are still for kids and that movie is king, even as their industry is surpassed in revenue, with a true house-on-fire this-is-fine attitude. To them, they put themselves through the grinder that is Hollywood. They believe they are "owed" success. So they have no qualms about wearing the skin of a beloved IP in hopes of riding it to success, and then taking all the credit if by some miracle their project does succeed.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
Germans are straightforward and like to use German words that describe the role/function of the weapon in their model designations. The Americans seem to typically prefer designing company names (AR-15 = Armalite model 15, NOT "assault rifle" as some morons would have you believe. similarly, the Springfield M1903 rifle was designed and manufactured by Springfield Armory). The American military also has a separate military classification for equipment that always just uses "M" followed by a number, which used to be the year of adoption but now is arbitrarily just whatever, for everything from pistols to tanks. Speaking as another American, I don't really get that, and I can tell you there isn't really much rhyme or reason to it.
The Brits used to be wonky though. For example, STEN is an amalgamation of the designers' names, Shepard and Turpin, as well as the manufacturing plant, the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield. More recently, it seems that UK equipment has more straightforward naming conventions (i.e. SA80 for Small Arm, 1980s)
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Well technically he's right, just expressed his opinions in a clownish way. If the Nazis didn't do anything good, the US and the Soviets wouldn't have competed to scoop up their scientists like spilled candy from a pinata right as the war ended. Animal cruelty laws were, ironically given how he treated people, introduced to German legislature for the first time under Hitler. And of course, Germany was suffering from crippling depression and a lack of industrialization before the conservative alliance which included Hitler as chancellor went into power. This doesn't mean that I think they were overall "good," mind you, or that the good things they did could not have been performed by other leaders, just that they have good qualities which are often contradictory or ironic given their other actions or stated goals.
Furthermore, the point that we should stop "dissing on Nazis all the time" is a salient one. Again, not because they weren't bad, but for the same reason we don't constantly shit on Henry VIII's monarchy. Or Genghis Khan. Or Joseph Stalin. We're approaching the 100-year mark for the point at which this radical regime controlled Germany for just 12 or so years and we still talk about them as if they're a party running for office in every Western nation.
On the other hand many other things he says are flat-out wrong and typical of a newly "red-pilled" buffoon who has not done his proper research. For example, Hitler was not Christian, Hess's writings and talks from his closest associates confirm that. His Christianity was a political play to win supporters, just like many politicians do today. Like most radical authoritarians, he was atheist and concerned only with his people worshipping the state.
This is sadly a bad symptom of our modern anti-free speech culture where we aren't allowed to talk like this without first putting on a full body suit and going on an "alternative news source."
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I don't think it has much to do with women specifically as a group of people but rather the fact that many people who play pub matchmaking games are just absolutely fucking intolerable. I'm talking about the case where they actually grief, kick, or otherwise sabotage their own game just to spite you, not just trash talk. In the days of dedicated servers, these people would be systematically banned on every server they spend more than 10 minutes in, but they can get away with skirting whatever ToS the game devs created for pub matches or creating new accounts when they are publicly banned. Because virtually no game IP bans you for breaking ToS, but dedicated server bans back in the day were usually IP bans since the server community didn't want to deal with that shit.
In CS, they likely antagonize you just because they think it's funny. "Woman" is just the one aspect of your character they can identify so they hang all their antagonization on that. In other cases, they know internally that they are bad, or losing the match for the team, so they seek someone to blame so that person can get flamed instead of themselves (which only works like, half the time, if I'm being charitable). I've had many pub games where people on my team would rather make me or someone else on the team feel bad for the rest of the entire match than actually try to win, even though a total noob could understand that we still have a decent chance to win. It happens on Dota probably more than any other game, but I've seen it happen on R6S several times too.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@turtlellamacow Ah, then we are kindred spirits. My mistake, most people scoff at internet arguments.
In regards to point 1, if you are not a monk, there is nothing preventing you from becoming an ascetic type of person who is not accepted into a monastery. I have no reason to believe he would not have done this, given how many people do this in real life anyway. Just look at vegans; they're not even driven by faith (although I personally find their behavior just about as irrational).
As for point 2, I learned a long time ago that despite being an atheist, ridiculing people does not serve any useful purpose. The best thing to do, if you really want to sow the seeds of doubt, is to get a religious person to ask their own questions in a non-assuming manner, usually by asking them questions they may find it difficult to answer. They may get angry anyway but there isn't anything you can do about that.
Furthermore, it is undeniable that without religion (and yes even the organized church, as many bad things they have done) we would not have a lot of culture that we find valuable today, most notably a vast array of teachings from the ancient Romans. I am of Germanic descent but to put it bluntly the Germanic people around the fall of Rome were barbarians and had no respect for their culture. They would not have had any reason to preserve it if it were not for Christian monks. It is also important to realize that Abrahamic religion is actually quite unique. Most religions before Judaism, Christianity and Islam are polytheistic and exist to provide a tradition for culture to be passed down from generation to generation. They usually don't have hard and fast rules but provide guidelines and examples through parables. Put simply if it wasn't for these "pagan" religions (and the usually-Christian monks who recorded them) we would have almost no idea about Norse culture at all, just as one example.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@LeeorVardi What questions are there to ask? You agreed with almost everything I said, yet you act as if you're countering my points with "yeah buts" and excuses. Then you call me ignorant for no apparent reason.
Isn't travelling abroad to get a wedding similar to having to travel out of state to get an abortion, one of the hottest issues in our nation at the moment? That's second-class citizenship treatment if I ever heard of it.
"Regarding immigration, non-Jews can immigrate based on merit, such as working for an Israeli company or sports team or any such circumstance" So what you're saying is, Jews get special privileges to travel to Israel and everyone else has to jump through the same hoops that one would normally have to jump through to emigrate. Yep, second-class citizenship. It doesn't matter if someone claimed to be persecuted, the right is given to Jews with no questions asked.
"I and probably a majority of secular Jews and non-Jews would like to see this changed, but the political power held by a few ultra orthodox parties over a long time and their participation and influence over the ruling government’s coalition of parties is preventing that from happening. " Again, you're agreeing with what I said. I am aware there are many liberal Jews in Israel. The problem is not orthodox Jewish beliefs, it is when those beliefs are not separated from either public policy or one's business and applied by those in power. Just like how women were only recently given the right to drive in Saudi Arabia thanks to their theocratic law practices. Or a Christian manager decides not to hire someone covered in tattoos because they're "not qualified."
As for the issue of whether or not Jews control a significant portion of our media; I'm not sure what to tell you. Many people who have spent much more time in the industry than I will attest that Jews are significantly overrepresented in show business and the media. Yet we go in circles because their opinions are dismissed out-of-hand as "anti-semitic" for making that observation, and if I were to make the same assertion, you'd call me both anti-semitic and ignorant because I am an outsider to that industry. All I can do is trust the experts on this -- people who have spent years in that industry -- because, apparently, those particular Jews really don't want people to talk about whether they're overrepresented or not, despite the fact that blacks, Hispanic people, Asian people, etc. have no issues with talking about their level of representation in media or government.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@gilgameschvonuruk4982 Russia was extremely late to the development of the middle class. They abolished serfdom in the 19th century, hundreds of years after Europe had left feudalist policies and norms in the dustbin of history. To short-sighted aristocrats seeking to hold on to whatever they can, the emergence of a middle class means only two things: the peasants become more powerful, and the aristocrats become weaker. Socialism in Russia was used as a weapon to punish the middle class for rising up from peasanthood. Just ask the kulaks -- oh wait, you can't, because they're dead.
In practice, as we've seen in more recent history in other nations, the rise of the middle class means the wealthy get wealthier, as long as they are not useless do-nothings who wish only to sit on their family inheritance until the end of time. This is because the "peasants" now have more money to spend and more motivation to work. In the short term, yes, they will be paid more and the aristocrats make less money. Not so in the long term. Otherwise, all the richest people and companies in the world would not have come from capitalist nations with burgeoning middle classes.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sovietnationalism5240 They remade it 3-4 times during its development cycle. That's why it took 12 years to come out, and why the finished product was total crap -- it was already several years out of date (running on Doom 3 engine) when it released. George Broussard, the original 3D Realms producer for Duke Nukem, was a total idiot during the development of this game and kept ordering the game to be remade each time a new shiny game engine was released during the game's development, because anything less than the shiniest graphics were not sufficient to him. Of course he went about it entirely the wrong way, he should have gotten his programmers to update an existing engine or write a new one from the ground up. He was always going to be behind the curve licensing other engines -- Quake 2, then Unreal, and so on -- as the game was being made. It was a race he could not win.
There is a legendary E3 gameplay video from 2001 showing off the game in the Unreal engine, I think, and it actually looked like a good game at the time. Most hardcore fans wish we got that build of the game instead of what we got now. Supposedly it was almost done but Broussard had another paranoia attack and ordered it to be remade in a new engine.
Coincidentally, Cyberpunk 2077 suffered from almost the same development issues. It was remade partway through and we got the "rebuilt" worse version of the game.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lich109 first of all, i'm not "getting mad." no idea why kids like you have to make everything about emotional status. neither of us have power to change this situation, getting mad would be idiotic. i argue about this because i find it entertaining. if i'm really lucky (like, 1% of the time) i learn something.
secondly, you're watching your bank account become worthless year over year, then you pay taxes, watch these people get glorified charity and wonder why a side of french fries costs $7. anyone with a brain could piece this together, it's not hard. nations don't exist to dole out charity. these people should be made to pay taxes before they receive any of these benefits. to advocate for anything else devalues yourself as a citizen. guess what, one day, those undocumented people might become citizens too. and guess what, they'll be mad when all those benefits go away and they have to pay taxes so more undocumented people can get those benefits... and so on, and so forth
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Rishi-nc1mn the problem with giving devs time after release to fix their game, is that the majority of sales for a game happen within the first few weeks. buying an unfinished game that was reported to be finished just weeks before launch and then waiting in the hopes that it will be finished because it was not, is not a reasonable request to ask of the consumer. if you wanted to play the finished version of the game, the only move that makes sense is to either not buy the game or refund it within 2 hours of purchase. those are not good options from the developer/publisher's perspective. conveniently, act 1 is very polished so most people aren't going to refund after 2 hours, and as I said, they made no mention that act 3 was unfinished before release. it is an underhanded move, just not as underhanded as selling a game at $70 that still has MTX in it. and frankly, I have a hard time empathizing with the people who say "they needed to release it soon" because they achieved record-breaking Early Access sales.
we need to keep reminding devs and publishers that they need enough time in development to finish their games, or they need to scale back their demanding production requirements, otherwise gaming as a whole will continue to suffer from battered wife syndrome. where someone who is only moderately "less bad" than big-name publishers will be celebrated for "revolutionizing" the industry, even if they only made a game in a way that was typical of 10 years ago. one step forward, two steps back
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Jennie Bharaj is a bona-fide nerd, in my opinion. I can tell just from the way she talks, and the way she talked in the Huffington Post interview. She's passionate about games and doesn't want to see anything bad happen to them, but she's not eloquent and doesn't speak well under pressure. I wish her the best, but I also wish she would stick to a written medium, or take a few speech classes.
Dick Santorum :: In response to the comment just above this one, that is correct. The reason that misogyny and other bigotry was brought into this discussion is purely to detract from the actual issues at hand. We have ample evidence to have most of these fucks lose their job in any other industry, but it just so happens in this one that their clique is so closely-knit and so dominant in games journalism that the opposite has happened. When the 14 "gamers are dead" articles were released simultaneously during August, evidence was dug up to suggest that this was indeed planned (or at least discussed) several years in advance of it actually happening; "this" being the death of the word "gamer" and its identity as "cishet white male." You can find it in the stickied threads on 8chan.co/gg .
Personally, I believe this is a result of, at the very root, the co-opting of various civil rights fields of study in academia (most notably, feminism). The type of "feminism" normally associated with man-hating and projected rape dates back to the 70's and earlier, and has undeniably taken over the field in academics. Now, there's a new generation that went to college learning under all these extremist professors, primarily in California. These gaming "journalists" are their offspring, if you will. That's my take on it. Others have much more tinfoil-y theories, some of which have merit, but I am not willing to put stock in any of them yet. Right now, to me, the only clear link is the one to 3rd wave feminism in academia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@janesmy6267 It is by definition, not how humans think. In psychology, it's called heuristic thinking. Humans use shortcuts to arrive at conclusions based on experience. They can notice patterns in things that relate to something similar they've done before, even if they're doing something else for the first time, and arrive at the correct answer with no prior experience. An AI, as we know it today, is kind of like training a dog (although honestly I believe that comparison does a disservice to dogs, but it's a difficult concept to explain). They must be explicitly trained or instructed how to deal with situations on a case by case basis. We call this algorithmic thinking. As of today, we get over this limitation (well, a little) by simply throwing billions of cases at supercomputers so they can crunch numbers and train themselves for so many cases or situations. But it isn't real heuristic thinking.
To put it another way, if there were a human student and an AI who both showed up to take a final exam: The AI would have "learned" and passed the test by simply memorizing all the answers, but the human (assuming they are a good student) would have learned by building blocks of fundamental understanding so they can arrive at the same correct answer without memorization.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@trix8669 They'd change for the better if we got rid of incarceration and reinstated corporeal punishment. I really don't know when or why we got off thinking that imprisoning someone for months or years at a time and just letting them back out into society at large like nothing's wrong was a good idea. After they made a bunch of friends in prison with other criminals, no less.
Just take a few flogs, lose an extremity, whatever, and be done with it. On a primal level, people respond to that better, and criminals are statistically impulsive, primal people. You may think the person might be too disabled to work now that they've been injured, but the same applies to our current prison system. It is just much more expensive, and encourages more crime because the criminals there share ideas with one another while incarcerated. But there's too much money in it for lawyers and other members of this corrupt legal system. Jail is a huge moneymaker, just not for the taxpayer.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ShabazzTBL I've seen a couple of weird training partners in jiu-jitsu. I'm an adult (late 20s when this happened) and there was a teenager in the class who I rolled with once. Luckily for him I was super new so I didn't know about this technique, and I don't panic much, but from standing position, he flipped himself upside down and did this weird armbar on me without even bringing me to the ground first. Doing something like this to an untrained person without even a warning like "hey I'm going to try some crazy technique, are you cool with that" is probably one of the dumbest things you could do because you don't know how they'll react. Also, it was the most painful armbar I've ever experienced in training. Again, luckily for him I just stood there and got armbar'd, but he was a guy who was smaller than me and put his entire body weight on me. If things went slightly differently, I could have thrashed around and smashed his head or neck against the ground quite easily without intending to. I've had other guys smaller than me who got full back mount while I was standing (like a monkey on your back, basically) and it ended quite poorly for them. I had to struggle just to not fall down backwards and hurt them, but if it were a real fight that would be all I need to do to hurt them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MassiveDestructionSP Google Search has far more value because it shows you things that are relevant to what you're looking for. Reddit shows you a smattering of posts that are vaguely related to a topic, but must typically accommodate a wide variety of discussion. This means you'll get anything from in-depth analysis/support to a stupid image macro as an OP.
Ultimately, your comparison is totally inappropriate because Google and platforms like Reddit serve very different purposes. Google exists purely to serve information. Reddit is a discussion platform, which means that a user may not always know what they are looking for when they browse the site, but fails at that because it both fails to filter discussions adequately and incentivizes its users to subvert genuine discussion (updoots). An anonymous imageboard (4chan) has the same problems with content filtering, but has fewer issues with disingenuous discussion because OPs are heavily policed by the community for being low-effort and there is no way to signal to other users that you are a "better user" through some kind of point system. You must rely on the content of your post. There's a reason why most of the famous internet memes originated from 4chan, back in its heyday.
On the other hand, a more traditional discussion forum filters its topics more adequately with subforums (Support, General, Off-Topic, etc.) but still has similar problems with communities becoming too incestuous and abusive moderators. Both of these options, while flawed, still succeed at their jobs better than Reddit does. Both of them also allow you to post original content.
Also, please show me a Reddit post that hosts its own image or video. I'd love to see that, would be a first.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Turbo-DF The tears of rage have long since dried up. For most, we've moved past the stage of acceptance. It's sad to think about, like a pet who died long ago being sad, but it's something you get over. Society is not going in a good direction for romance and most studies reinforce this hypothesis.
All I can say is, if you're a Darwinist, you'd better hope that women choose the right men. Because the way our dating scene works now, our future rests entirely in their hands, unless we can perfect artificial wombs. You can insult me if you'd like, but you, like me, are just coping with the death of modern society rearing its ugly head. It was inevitable anyway. Empires fall, it's just the way of humanity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Eh, at least you had someone that liked you. I never had that. I fell in love exactly one time in high school. I guess you could say I am a hardcore stoic, because having that level of emotional intensity was just not something I wanted and I fear it even now. I'm not autistic, but I suspect I might have Asperger's. I'm extremely stubborn and independent so I never sought help for it, not to mention it is expensive and mental health care is kind of a total joke in the US.
But, I managed to work up the courage to ask this girl out. It took every bit of mental strength that I had. I just enjoyed her smile tremendously, she laughed at my jokes and actually made conversation with me. I thought I had a real chance. I suggested a movie, she said yes and I was on cloud fucking nine for the rest of the day. Then she texted me that afternoon saying that actually, her boyfriend wouldn't like that. I was crushed and angry. I thought I was supposed to be the dense idiot as a man, not her? How could she possibly see that as anything but a romantic advance? Anyway, that level of emotional rollercoaster is just something I don't know I'll ever want in my life ever again. I can't empathize with people who say "it is better to love and have lost than never love at all."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Keeki95 Any platform is fine when the community is good. The problem is a mixture of both Discord itself, and how the platform impacts users/mods, and how they take advantage of it. Discord is a lot more analogous to IRC than most people might think because it is real time chat that has moderators, but like IRC it also has a nearly infinite log (assuming you set up your IRC client correctly, which many users do). Discord's "log" is even more punishing because it logs things other people say even when you are not online.
The real time chat encourages some moderators to watch all discourse as much as possible. Then those who feel inclined will take rules as seriously as possible, banning people for a one-off comment made in the moment, which might not have been made on a forum. Forums are a bit more cumbersome to use so they have less discourse. IRC was the same way back in its prime and also was filled with overly zealous or petty moderators.
Discord also creates a false sense of privacy for many. Even when the server is publicly joinable, the fact that it is only available to those who bother to search up the link seems to make people believe that only "their people" are in the server. As a result, a surprising number of people have shoved their foot in their mouths on their community Discord, which caused a falling out, all because they mistakenly thought everyone agreed with them when they made some outrageous statement.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Dream jobs" are just that. I originally wanted to be a game developer. Applied to my dream studio, id Software, and lo and behold -- they expected me to know how to write C++ code on paper. I had only ever written Java and C#. There were literally no resources for this at my school, even though id Software is very local. And, to be blunt, the... difficulties involved with developing in C++ highly disincentivize learning it in one's spare time. In retrospect, it was naive for me to think I wasn't going to be prompted with C++, but hey, I was like 20. I had already participated in game production labs, too, where students work together for a whole semester to make a game demo. We didn't use C++ though. I didn't want to work on shitty mobile games, and I had no capital to raise to start a studio. So I said fuck it, and went to commercial software. Best decision I ever made. Never been the victim of crunch for more than a few days at a time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kdawg3484 I wouldn't say that D&D has ever been "roleplay-friendly" at least in comparison to other games. WHFRP, for example, delinates social classes, penalties or boons for interacting within or without said social classes, rules for starting up a business, rules for dealing with guilds and fees they may mandate, talents (sorta like feats) that change how you interact with people (like nobles ignoring you because you're a servant) etc. D&D is very basic when it comes to actual roleplaying. That's not to say you can't roleplay well in D&D, but the game won't help you do it.
D&D is, first and foremost, a game about deciding how you can blast as many goblins as possible in a 30-foot circle which is approximated with squares, and then rolling for loot afterward. That's what the rules always focused on. It's downright tragic that so many people play D&D, because I can tell from many of their campaign descriptions that they're grating on many of the limitations of the rules and would enjoy something else much more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Buckycarson Are you trying to imply that India is less violent than the US? I don't get what you're trying to say. That example did not help your case at all. Japan is an island nation that restricts immigration very heavily. They don't have, for example, cartel members going in and out of their borders willy-nilly. Nor do they have an intelligence agency that sells so-called assault weapons to criminal organizations in their neighboring countries on the down low, let alone the up-and-up (Fast and Furious). Again, not really fair to compare these nations. Population diversity numbers in almost every nation simply don't compare to the US, whose "white" population is steadily approaching 50%, and the largest ethnic minority has only been an established free community for about 160 years. You simply don't see this combination of cultural clashes and problems anywhere else.
Most police departments in the US do in fact have ARs, and there isn't any particular reason to believe the department protecting the Uvalde jurisdiction wouldn't have had them. You can find numerous videos of policemen responding to active shooters using ARs of their own and they are not SWAT team members or feds. I have seen an AR sitting in the back of a college campus police cruiser when I went to college.
"2 18 years olds with obvious mental health issues get weapons" I agree this is a problem and I'm wondering if there is more to the story of him buying the AR. According to all his peers, he is obviously disturbed. Kids at his school knew that he tortured animals, tried to pick fights with other kids, mutilated himself for attention, and so on. Yet none of these things were taken into consideration when he bought a gun, although gun stores in the US reserve the right to refuse service to any reason, and most apply that policy without reservation. I find it suspect that this kid who just turned 18 turned up at the store and was sold an AR without any misgivings at all, even though he has a scarred face from mutilating himself and so on. Why were his numerous fights/animal harm incidents not reported and put on his record somewhere? Despite what you may have heard, federal background checks are required for a gun purchase. Nobody in his community seems to think they're accountable for their lack of action despite this kid's obviously destructive behavior. Everyone keeps saying that more needs to be done, but when they're the ones who might be responsible suddenly that crowd goes silent
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@placeholder8768 Anarchism is a joke ideology and therefore not worth mentioning. They exist to be useful idiots for other radicals. The most impactful thing an anarchist can do, is allow other people to take power for him, and then subsequently get killed or imprisoned for being an anarchist under the new regime. If I remember correctly, the Spanish Civil War is the case study for this. Anarchism is bull-headed rejection of the fact that humans will naturally fill a power vacuum when it appears. So you might as well try to fill it before someone even nastier than you does.
In Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stepping stone to Communism. It is by definition a temporary/intermediary ideology and not supposed to last forever. This changed over the decades to make socialism a more permanent institution because, surprise surprise, Communism doesn't really exist and never did. Communism bears striking similarities to the utopian cults of the 18th and 19th centuries, where groups of immigrants would get together, usually with the support of a bank, and fund a "perfect settlement" somewhere uninhabited in the United States frontier, which would inevitably run out of resources and fail. Is it because the land just wasn't workable, or because they were naive? Maybe if we try another few hundred times, we'll be sure...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
DontListen ToMe Agreed, not every argument is enjoyable, but such is life. But if you do it for long enough, you can derive enjoyment out of any discussion which doesn't "stick to a script," in a manner of speaking.
Consider for example, someone who is angry about something that a company did (say, a game developer for instance) and spams every thread on their discussion board with a boring message, something like "FUCK <DEVS> I WANT THE OLD PATCH BACK THEY DON'T DESERVE ANY MONEY." This guy is mad, and chances are he won't be doing this for very long. But while he is, it might be fun to mess with him if he reads replies to his post. People who are paid to spam are always boring because they don't ever change their responses, and likewise with people who have massive cognitive dissonance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The ironic thing is that it's basically confirmed that this is a 1-to-1 model of someone at the developer's office. You can search up the photo yourself, but the faces look identical. So it can't be uncanny valley by definition because it's a real face, but that just shows how repulsive some find the face. I say this not as a defense, I just find it amusing.
We should always acknowledge our weaknesses in life that we can't change. I was born with terrible eyesight. The government, in all its wisdom, allows me to get a driver's license, but I don't do that because it's a bad idea. By the same token, no one should have made this person's face the face of the MC, because everyone, in their ignorance that this is a real person's face, has proverbially opened fire with both barrels. I think all the devs have done is made that person feel even worse about themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EksaStelmere That's a very silly analysis of world events because it assumes that an American, Canadian, Laotian, Japanese person, etc. all share in the experience of any war that their individual cultures commit to. Japan was in near-constant war during sengoku jidai but those wars were safely ignored by everyone else in the world. And, furthermore, the nature of these wars is very different from each other. Earlier Japanese wars were steeped in honorable tradition which, while not flawlessly followed, did help lessen the overall death toll quite a bit. Limited resources and land tend to cause people to limit the scope of war. On the other hand, the sprawling desire for world domination across virtually every remotely powerful nation in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries saw war reach new heights of totally unrestricted carnage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** There's only two ways to improve collision physics: run more checks per second, or come up with a better way to check collision. Obviously, the latter is the less-resource intensive, and usually sought after, but it's also much more creatively challenging. Most platformers, for instance, use raycasting, which involves using several long, parallel lines to check for objects that the object is about to touch. This cheapens collision detection because you sort of know that you're going to collide with something ahead of time. It is also a very simple method, so it's usually only good for 2D platformers (at least, in its most pure form).
1
-
1
-
This weapon fired a sort-of intermediate cartridge, almost a pistol cartridge. As he says in the video, it only has 1300 ft/s of muzzle velocity -- that's not very fast, it's good for a pistol round though. Very sufficient for close range trench warfare.
The M1 shot .30-06, which was a large hunting round. It will put a man out of the war pretty much anywhere you hit him, and at any range you can see. Additionally, when top brass plan a war, they see men as a resource, not as individuals. It's ruthless, but necessary to win a war. The only thing worse than sending a man to die is letting his death be in vain, so it became a vicious circle of sending in more men to make sure that they could win. Which is why they prioritize making equipment which is cheap and effective over expensive gadgets that may or may not make the average infantryman last that much longer. 8 rounds per en-bloc clip is sufficient, especially with a quick and easy reload. Additionally, .30-06 is heavy. It's a lot harder to carry a 40 round magazine of .30-06 rounds (which would be too massive to fit in anything but a full-sized machine gun) than a 40 round magazine of those short .30 caliber cartridges used in the Pederson device. Finally, simplicity is a virtue in itself, and the M1's simplicity ensures its reliability. Complicated devices like the Luger are harder to maintain.
1
-
Well, there were high-capacity hand-held weapons in World War 2. The easiest example that comes to mind is the PPSh, based on the Finnish KP/31 submachinegun. They were frequently issued with drum magazines that held over 70 rounds and fired 7.62x25mm Tokarev, which probably would have been roughly comparable to the .30 caliber Pederson round you saw in the video (although, they may have some unique characteristic that separates them, I don't know much about these specific rounds).
High-capacity magazines are generally less reliable at the time, due to imprecise machining. For example, the PPSh-41 came standard issue with two drum magazines when it was first issued, then later on the Soviets changed it to 35-round box magazines because each drum magazine had to be fitted for a specific gun, and they had matching serial numbers. If you had to trade magazines with a comrade, they may or may not even fit your weapon properly. Very bad for logistics.
Virtually all of the concessions towards "worse" or "more primitive" firearms and technology you see in WW2 is simply for ease of production and logistics. Another thing to consider is that WW2 was the first war which was studied and analyzed in-depth by researchers, and they found that men only willingly shot at the enemy roughly 25% of the time (regardless of nationality), because this was before Skinner and behaviorial training which could teach soldiers to kill on a reflex. It could be that commanders knew this before researchers did and therefore had relaxed standards for how much firepower the average soldier had.
On the subject of .30-06's advantage against unarmored opponents, I would say that the stopping power or destructive force compared to a round like the .30 in the video is significantly higher. The big difference that matters is, getting shot with the .30 would put you out of the battle and maybe out of the war. Getting shot with a .30-06 will definitely put you out of the war, whether it's because you've died, or because it's a "million-dollar wound" (a wound which renders you unfit for service and gets you sent home). Pistol-type rounds are small enough and have low enough energy that they frequently just damage flesh without causing serious injury even in unarmored people, if they are not placed well -- think about how many times .50 Cent got shot with 9mm rounds, for example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@InfernosReaper My reaction is not knee-jerk, it is very well considered. I took the time to consider the benefits of using an AR pistol with no sights; there aren't any. Yours is not, considering that you apparently aren't even aware that some people use pistols for hunting due to space constraints (i.e. sitting in a tree), hence the need for a round like 500 Magnum. Did you really think that all large caliber handguns were novelty items? Why did you think it was such a big market?
The range you are talking about simply does not exist. There is no range that would be completely safe if you allow a person who cannot effectively aim their firearm to put rounds downrange. Something will be damaged. It is quite impressive how you downplay the danger of firearms, but I guess it is not atypical for American gun owners... I say this as another American. The state of firearm usage discipline and education in this country is tragic.
Some people are principled about "rights." I get it, but I am a pragmatic. Practically speaking, "rights" don't exist. It's nothing more than a polite agreement that our government won't send thugs to shove automatic weapons down our throats when we do certain things. For most other matters, these "rights" are revoked whenever it is convenient for the one revoking them. The 2A is the exception because it vests us with a means of not allowing that to happen. However, this firearm serves no purpose to that end. It is like the tail of a peacock, there just to look outrageous. Viewing the world through the lens of what "should be" because of "rights" leads to idiotic, zealous and "principled" decision making. Do what is practical. Not what is "right."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DJWeapon8 I think you're giving the people who make these diversity casting decisions too much credit. They aren't actually principled. In truth they don't give a damn about representation, the struggles of the oppressed, intersectional politics and so on and so forth. They think "Oh let's just make a Black Elf guy. Black people like that sort of thing, we'll get posts on Twitter." That is literally as deep as it goes, and for the life of me I cannot fathom why anyone would celebrate laziness, regardless of ethnicity or political stance.
Imagine a scene where the writers, director(s) and perhaps some of the cast are in a room brainstorming things, then there's a knock on the door and a producer walks in.
"Hey how's the movie coming along? Good? Good, say are there any original characters for this series?"
"Yeah we've got an elf guy who marries a human woman, you know, to give a more grounded perspective on the plot events"
"Hey sounds great. You should make him Black."
"Sorry?"
"You should make him Black. It will be good for optics. I've got another meeting to run to so I'll see you all later. Keep making the magic!" finger guns
As far as I'm aware this is how a staggeringly high number of terrible decisions are made in the creative process. This extends to video games as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BringDHouseDown That isn't a modern thing at all, to be real with you. Back when a woman's sexual market value was completely destroyed if she had sex out of wedlock, women who did so would do anything to avoid their secret being discovered. This was, in many cases, why witch hunts/trials would occur, and there was even a special death penalty for women who killed their babies because it happened so often. It was drowning. If you look through historical documents, like the diary of executioner Franz Schmidt, you'll realize a lot of women killed their children to avoid the stigma. Nowadays, however, they are completely free of that stigma, and there are very few excuses for abortion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sadlobster1 I don't know that many RPGs which are real world style war games. The most popular ones I know of are Call of Cthulhu, which is early modern detective style with (obviously) Lovecraft, Shadowrun which is near future cyberpunk with D&D races and magic injected in because why not, 40k RPGs which are sci-fi as you say, and WHFRP which is also fantasy but more renaissance themed instead of high medieval themed. But if you care to look there's a practically inexhaustible number of other fantasy games. Legend of the Five Rings is another big one based on feudal Japan. The Dark Eye is very popular in Germany and I think it got a new release recently.
You can LARP in any game; it adds flavor to any game at all. That is beside the point. The point of buying a rulebook is to take burden away from the GM in trying to make the game fun. You could theoretically start with nothing and make your own game, but that's monumental levels of effort. Most gameplay decisions in D&D rules lack impact and the game rules don't help you with trying to make them impactful. Casting a spell, for example, never results in any mishaps or interesting side effects unless you're wearing armor in which case you get the most boring result -- you lose your spell and nothing happens. Furthermore, mage characters are completely useless when they run out of spells thanks to Vancian magic, another sacred cow long overstaying its welcome.
In many other systems, like Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, WHFRP or 40k RPGs, you can cast magic at any time as much as you want but it has significant inherent risk factors. These are usually a combination of social stigma, damage to one's mental state or stamina, unexpected side effects due to the caster's inability to adequately control magic power, etc. This makes the world feel much more alive and causes you to think a little bit more about whether you should cast magic missile for the 3rd time today because it avoids all to-hit rolls. The decision is also connected to roleplaying within the world and not just tactical metagame "should I waste my spell slot or save it" level decision-making.
There are other examples I could go into but I don't want to write a giant essay about why I don't like D&D, just give an example of why one may prefer other systems and to let you know there are other fantasy options out there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cmln2413 They're an ethnic religion, namely if the person in question is an orthodox Jew.
This is bad, for a couple of reasons. It's at least twice as exclusive as any other religion -- if you're a convert, you can be at best, a reformed Jew, unrecognized as valid by a whole subgroup of Jews. Basically, a second-class Jew. Christians, on the other hand, welcome converts as the body and back bone of their religion. I'm atheist, just for the record, but these are objective trends and facts.
The other reason is that within their tenets are over-the-top self-aggrandization. We are God's Chosen, everyone else are our slaves, and we are bound to not work one day out of the week such that being a "shabbos goy" is its own business proposition (yes, there are really rent-a-day workers for the sabbath). Even if this is the most strict interpretation of their religious texts, such ideas disseminate in part throughout the whole community as long as they are not spoken out against. Combine that with the exclusivity, and you have a recipe for a people that are really just not very pleasant to be around, especially if you live near them. Imagine if you wholeheartedly believe these things and you're in a leadership position. Why would you hire anyone but God's chosen? Their shenanigans lose out only to Shariah law Muslims and their fun little sex trafficking rings.
To put it more succinctly, Jews harbor what can only be called Jewish extremists within their own group, and pretend that they're normal. That's why they get the hate collectively, because they don't try to remove these people from the fold. Muslims are only slightly more thoroughly scrutinized. It doesn't matter if you're violent; if you believe in the absolute supremacy of your group, you will be unpalatable to society in the long term.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's weird how you think that disproves that theory, when in reality, it proves it beyond reasonable doubt.
Ask yourself why everyone carried guns in the "lawless" Wild West. Now you understand. Defund the police, decriminalize non-victimless crimes, and the need for arming oneself only becomes more pronounced.
If the police were perfectly moral, timely, and competent, true, nobody would need guns for self-defense. But that's a pure pipe dream.
By the way, by statistics alone, there are 4x as many defensive, non-violent uses of a gun (i.e. scaring the perp away) than actual shootings. We can assume, because it is true with all other crime statistics, that there are many more that go unreported. So really, there is no "good guy with a gun" theory. There is a "good guy with a gun" fact, and there are morons who don't read publicly available records.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CBfrmcardiff First of all, being pointed to an app isn't helpful at all. Secondly, as others have mentioned, a man asking a woman for dating advice has always been a joke.
The problem here is that the activity of dating is, frankly, wholly unappealing. My problem is that I'm introverted, but just socially outgoing enough to know that I have a very hard time relating to almost everybody. I know I sound like a prick, but a part of me secretly wishes that I lived 500 years in the past and that my marriage was arranged for me. At least then, the both of us would have to make it work, and I feel like I am good at persuasion and compromise. However, I'm not that good at small talk. I don't relate to most people and I don't have any passion for watching TV, or most mainstream activities for that matter. I take care of myself physically, but the idea of spending my entire evening of free time on someone I don't know, only to roll the roughly 95% chance that I won't like them or find them boring -- it's just very unappealing. Not to mention that goes both ways. If I actually think I'll like someone for a change, and they don't, the evening is also wasted. I've thought about dating online so I get a chance to talk to someone first and form a connection, but even that is unappealing, because I've met a lot of people who use it just for hookups so that's the impression I'm left with for online dating.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm just lazy when it comes to people. I just don't have that much patience for them. I do have a lot of other male friends who I feel lucky to have, but every time I consider spending time trying to court someone I don't know, my mind returns with a resounding "meh." I just don't care. At the same time, a part of me would like to have the deep bonding experience of raising a family. Just wish I didn't have to trudge through all the "dating" crap.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LeeorVardi It isn't anti-semitic. Consider for example the case of any other minority. If black people controlled the media, they would be out and proud about it. They would be glad that they finally have some industry, some part of society, that is productive and that they can call the shots on. Furthermore it is not bigoted to perform basic statistical observation. Why the special treatment for Jews?
Simple fact of the matter is that all Abrahamic religion, not just Judaism, is quite cancerous and tends to be a factor that people use to filter out "undesirable" people, i.e. people not in their group. But with Jews, it is in fact arguably worse because orthodox Jews follow a religion that is actually married to ethnicity; if your mother was not a Jew, you're not a "real" Jew. And before you call me a bigot, just talk to anyone who is actually from Israel. Or read their laws, which restrict marriage between Jews and non-Jews as well as non-Jewish immigration. Similar to radical Muslims throwing gay people off of rooftops, or both male and female circumcision, it's simply a barbaric practice that I can't abide and that no reasonable person should abide. Christians managed to adapt over hundreds of years, it's time for Jews and Muslims to do the same. Although I'd prefer if we managed to leave these all-in-one package deal religions by the wayside but it seems humanity simply doesn't want to let it go.
I don't hate an individual. Hating individuals before judging their behavior is not productive. However the problem tends to be when a person of certain biases created by their group associations gets into power. It's been a problem with the Catholic church, Muslim theocrats, white supremacists, and so on. Why not Jews?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is truly the abject failures of the other companies involved. Like the first reply said, Epic sold themselves out to TenCent and shat out a laughably meager competitor to Steam with the money provided. EA and Ubisoft were both so arrogant that they thought players would love to install all their launchers alongside Steam's. Blizzard actually had a dumb enough fanbase for that same strategy to work, for a while, but even they issue "timed exclusives" for their own distribution platform now before releasing on Steam. Mostly because they've pissed away their fans' loyalty to nothing. MS has a tendency to throw lots of money at projects that fall over in a few years because they aren't their flagship products, kinda like Google does. Games for Windows Live was no exception.
Sony is... well, remarkably stupid. Really, I think it would be dishonest to suggest that any of Sony's current strategy was caused by anyone but themselves. They explicitly told all their original Japanese fans that they don't matter, gave Nintendo (of all brands) the entire market for any anime-styled game that touched on anything remotely sexual, took pride in telling everyone that they want to censor any game that releases on their platform, etc.
Squeenix is similarly idiotic. They sold off their most valuable Western IPs, like Tomb Raider, for pennies on the dollar because some ancient Nips in suits were incredibly mad that Final Fantasy wasn't performing as well. Then said "uhh, don't worry guys, NFTs will fix it." The price they sold those IPs at still blows my mind to this day.
You could write two separate whitepapers for how stupid Sony and Square Enix have been over the past several years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aquascape_Dreaming I don't know where you get the sense of "more valuable" from. I don't think I saw anyone saying that introverts are more valuable, just lamenting the tendency for others to assume that a lack of socializing equates to dislike or hatred. You equate the ability to overanalyze with value? That sounds like some kind of weird internal bias from your own introversion.
I only wish to see the world for what it is, without insecure people being offended at their flaws, no matter what their personality type is. No one can move forward or improve themselves unless they acknowledge their own flaws.
By grade level and career choice, I'm a pretty "smart" (at least, book smart) person. But I don't think intelligence is the key defining trait of a person's value. I value the company of manual laborers, they are often no-nonsense and have funny stories to tell. I value the company of farmers for similar reasons. To me, a different perspective is always valuable, but if your contribution to a conversation sucks, then you're boring. If you get offended when no one was clearly trying to offend you, you're annoying. It's really that simple.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, they're hated because they bend rules, although they usually don't break them, to succeed. But I think far worse than that is the fact that they tend to protect their own even when they are undeniably in the wrong. The ADL is basically the epitome of this behavior. Because they're such a small, and typically foreign group, the blatant group favoritism is seen in a much less favorable light to the majority.
For a group to stop being discriminated against, they must recognize their own who are in the wrong and they must disavow them. Otherwise, the silent ones are seen as complicit, and they are labeled guilty too. This is expected of white and Christian people and no other group in the modern zeitgeist. Muslims don't do it, blacks don't do it, Jews don't do it. Heck, even Israel is better at doing this than most other Jews -- they fired their guy who stated that maybe Palestine could be nuked. So, now we have a situation where everyone hates white people because they're starting to become disillusioned with apologies and holding themselves accountable, and white people are beginning to hate everyone else for seemingly not possessing the same ability to self-account (which is really not true, but they are being convinced by members of authority -- leftist politicians -- that self-accountability is weakness). Ironically racial and ethnic tensions are at an all time high. And I'd say it is by design.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fuchs-c7o It's a "direct result" of oligarchs wanting to control speech. What's truly a mystery is why people like you seem to think that this idea of rich people acquiring control to secure their interests is exclusive to capitalism. You act as if there is a mystic idol of a pig in a top hat and monocle that could be smashed with a sledgehammer, and then a spell will be broken and people will stop wanting to be rich. Take a dip in Chinese social media, and see how people talk about topics there. I guarantee you it makes our euphemisms and nu-speak look tame. I'm sure you'll say, "but that's just the capitalist influence in their shiny, divine, flawless Communist society..."
In truth, it doesn't matter. Not even a little. Because the accrued assets of the historically wealthy has far surpassed critical mass. We're talking about people who have transcended any reliance on government entities, completely. Think of it like a game of Civilization or Risk; they're the players. Actually, even that is inadequate because you can only control one nation at a time in those games. It doesn't matter what system of governance we use; they will pull the strings and we will dance for them. The only thing we can do is be aware, and wait until they inevitably fuck it up for themselves, as they have been on track to do for a few decades now. Also, use the internet, where they still have the inability to control everything, as they do in print and broadcast media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The standards thing is such a paper-thin bullshit discussion.
Nobody said "this shouldn't be held as a standard" when actually exceptional games (in terms of funding and resources) came out, like Red Dead Redemption 2. Rockstar developed a whole new animation engine for their games that nobody else has access to -- granted, it was done before RDR2 entered development, but still. That same standard of production quality went all the way back to GTA4/RDR1 when the engine was developed. Holding any game company to Rockstar's standard of production would frankly be completely absurd. They broke many records with RDR2. If holding any game up as a standard would hurt the industry, it would be a game like RDR2. But not a peep came out about it. Only when Larian released their game, which was supposed to be for a niche audience, did this suddenly become relevant. Instead the fact that horse balls shrink in cold weather was celebrated.
What they're really trying to say and don't want to admit is that they don't have either the creative freedom or talent to make a game like BG3. Or both. Based on everything I've played and seen, BG3 is a well-produced game but the idea that its budget reached anywhere near that of the typical AAA game seems totally ridiculous to me. It has no armies of investors ready to shovel money at their studio.
It also has relatively small world maps that are content-dense. This is an older style of sandbox design that started with games like Gothic way back in 2000 because the tech was not there for larger worlds. So instead of complaining about it, designers adapted and I still believe Gothic is a very good game (although the combat did not age as well, the world is very well designed). It's a pretty cheap way to make an RPG; less map means less time and money spent on assets. But this type of intelligent design requires talent and passion and breathing room afforded by management. None of these things are in good supply in the typical AAA studio. Not because the devs are inherently worse, but because the studios are simply not ran that way. Their data has told them it's not cost efficient to make "truly" good games and it makes them angry when they're proven wrong. And like the data nerds they are, they cry "statistical outlier" and pretend it never happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I had my first ever job at 22. I was busy going to college. Fun fact, I tried to get a job stocking inventory at Target in high school. They wouldn't hire me, and I have no idea why to this day. Don't think I said anything bad during the interview. Don't really regret my decisions now. I don't really get why retail or fast food is a curse that people willingly bestow upon young people. It's fucking horrible, and should be avoided at all costs.
To play devil's advocate for a moment here, sometimes C-level executives make shockingly stupid decisions. That first job I worked on one of the core software teams at a dating website you have certainly heard of. I worked there for all of 6 months before me and about 90 other people were laid off. At that time, I was building an entirely new database for the company using NoSQL because they were based on Microsoft SQL Server, which is extremely expensive. Before that I completely revamped the testing interface for the searching/matching algorithm because it was based on stinky old jQuery code. My boss approved of that, so I'm pretty sure I didn't make it worse. A couple of weeks after, I found out through someone I know still working there that the CTO was fired. I suspect that debacle was his doing. Or worse, it was the CEO's idea to begin with, and the CTO objected. Even more stupidly, they gave me 3 months of severance for working there 6 months. I never complained, but it seems stupid to give a guy with no tenure making $55k a year 3 months of severance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hontilash "Let me put it this way, if I trace a picture of an artist, add more hips, increase boob size, color with different lighting, it's still a trace."
Uh... no, it's not. No reasonable person would call that a trace. They might call it an edit, but not a trace.
"In order to argue that these AIs don't steal, and instead learn"
That isn't a dichotomy. It isn't "either steal, or learn." You fundamentally misunderstand how these applications work. They match patterns, conceptually, and then put an original image together based on those conceptual patterns. The work is derivative but that doesn't make it theft. There are thousands of artists out there making works just as uninspired and derivative, but you aren't going after them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't understand why these systems can't be used in daily life for routine tasks by laymen, and metric can't be used for all manufacturing and science. Consider this: You're a farmer, at any period in history. You don't know shit about shit except putting literal shit on the ground to grow shit. How do you measure things? Well, you could use the space from one end of your thumbnail to the other for small things. That's an inch. You can use your foot for things that are a little bit bigger than that. Three feet to a yard is, frankly, elementary and if you complain about that mathematical operation, I'm concerned for you because those farmers knew how to do it.
Now let's think to ourselves: How big is a meter? No, I mean, if you walked outside right now without any measuring tools and had to eyeball a meter, how would you do it? The easy answer for me, as an American, would be "it's about a yard," because they're almost the same at small distances. Otherwise you're stuck with guessing over and over again until you get a rough idea of what a meter is. The problem with metric is that it is based on quite arbitrary foundations. The conversion is excellent, but to a layman, the fundamental units themselves make almost no sense because they aren't relatable. To someone with little education or experience in measurement, the idea of a yard being three of your feet placed lengthwise is easy to grasp. Does this mean that "imperial is for stupid people?" I mean, sure if you want to put it like that. But then again you're going to be living in a world filled with stupid people for the rest of your life, so you might as well accommodate them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@@stevel6660 With all due respect, your lack of voting means that you are partly responsible for that now. In other words, you should have voted when you could. But that only applies to a system working as intended, which this one is not.
The taxation = theft line of reasoning is, frankly, a little too reductive and immature. Society requires compromise, and authority is one of those compromises. Unless you want to live in a village of about 200 people, which is the average number of people that the neocortex can support (in other words, the most people you could genuinely care about in your mind). A society based on donations to support infrastructure could work, but it would have to be extremely selective of who it lets in. Good luck getting that to fly in the modern zeitgeist. Your borders would be broken down by paid actors from foreign entities, masquerading as "innocent migrants."
It is a moot point anyway. There are no unsettled lands, with reasonable means of living, left on this earth, and the lawless lands are abused by the lawless. You wouldn't live in the Republic of Congo because the lack of law there is an illusion of freedom; really, you are just waiting to be abused by some war band of men with cast-off weapons of war. Real freedom requires great sacrifice, whether that be in your own time cultivating and renovating a remote piece of land far away from the eyes of tyrants, or the sacrifice of blood in a revolution. The fact that you are posting on a YouTube comment section, like me, suggests that you aren't truly doing everything you can to be free, and neither am I. That's the nature of compromise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just had a weird flashback about memorizing room paths in MUDs which are text based MMOs that you have to type directions in to move. If you're playing a PvP MUD and someone blinds you, you better memorize a path that looks like n, e, e, e, open, n, n, n, e, up
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cryptonaut1435 There's a dump truck of stuff if you want it laid out for you explicitly.
From a government's perspective, having more homosexuals in your country is objectively bad. Even in our society, which makes conscious efforts to improve homosexual acceptance year over year, homosexuals are more likely to have mental health issues. Their relationships are more likely to suffer from abuse. They suffer from physical health, too -- the vaginal canal is naturally adapted to help prevent some STDs, but the anal cavity, which often bleeds and isn't designed for sex, doesn't. Not to mention the repeated act of anal sex causes irreversible trauma over time. You could always choose to abstain, but again, this can contribute to a worse state of mental health. The mental health issues are a vicious cycle -- mentally ill people are more likely to abuse one another, which causes more issues. And I have not even touched on the fact that they can't reproduce, which is fatal for a nation if it reaches critical mass. The majority of people aren't even homosexual and we still suffer from massive issues with birth rates.
Furthermore, in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to show that homosexuality can be caused by nurture and environment, not just nature or processes in the womb. So it naturally follows that encouraging acceptance or even glorifying homosexual relationships for children isn't productive for a society, on either a micro or a macro level. If you're homosexual and you approach the issue objectively, you're left with a serious choice: either accept that you have a problem, which is a serious blow to your self-worth as you accept that you are on a path to "inferiority" (not unlike a bulimic or obese person with self-esteem issues for example) or you deny/don't care about the problems and accept yourself, which raises your self-esteem but renders you blind to the issues with the lifestyle. Either way you are at significant risk of mental health problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Allmybotsarewoke The Nazis came to power because Hitler really, really wanted it and the German people didn't have much of a choice. It was either vote for the puppet regime installed by the French and British after WW1 which resulted in the terrible situation they were in, or vote for the conservatives -- not the Nazis.
Something most don't realize is that the Nazis were never explicitly on the German ballot in that fateful federal election. Hitler was going to be chancellor as part of a deal because the traditional conservative party needed to make an alliance to have any hope at success, but they would retain congress. What they, and the rest of the German people, didn't count on was Hitler murdering everybody who stood in his way and abusing emergency powers once he was instated. Even with Hitler's charisma and impressive speeches, the Nazis earned a minority of support, something like 30% at the absolute most. Before Hitler their members literally numbered in the dozens. It was always a niche party for pissed off war veterans. Then Hitler artificially inflated support by promising socialist reforms, and backstabbing all the socialists once he was in power.
Communism was indeed bad, but the simple fact of the matter is that political street brawls only affected a minority of Germans living in large cities like Berlin. To any reasonable person, the choice between Nazism and Communism was between "really authoritarian guy" or "really authoritarian guy with different uniform." Nazism and Communism simply aren't that different from one another. Mussolini, the guy Hitler was inspired by, was himself a former Marxist.
The point of all this is, even with our media being bought out by interest groups, the Nazi regime was lightning in a bottle. It's not going to happen again and if we arrive at a similar situation here in the US (pray that we don't, and no we aren't even close yet) the reactionary movement will look quite different. The mere fact that Antifa and related "protests" are typically made up of paid goons instead of genuine activists proves that we aren't close to that level of internal strife. It's almost entirely an artificial movement.
Hitler defined the Nazi party more than anything with his blatant illegal power grabs and you would have to see a very similar leader for a similar party to take hold. As much as the media likes to compare, Trump never murdered anyone. The worst they could come up with is "he peed on some hookers that one time" which isn't even true. You'd need a madman who is somehow able to game the system and fool everyone while secretly wanting to murder everyone in Congress. It's virtually impossible in the age of the internet and there is no large contingent of pissed off veterans from a losing war to draw from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Man pages are helpful but I don't understand the anti-GUI bias for Linux users. Well, I kind of do, because as you said, Linux DEs are frankly lacking. But browsing man pages online in a browser is a lot more convenient than using the terminal if it is available and if you don't know the idiosyncrasies of, for example, the less reader. Command line options are usually not intuitive and vary based on the whimsy of whomever wrote the program so having a search option (CTRL+F in every browser, which almost everyone will be familiar with) and a comfortable reading environment is a must.
There are other advantages as well. In MATE, for example, hitting ALT+F2 at any time and launching any program with autocomplete, and using pre-defined scripts that have all of the command line options you would want instantly is extremely convenient. Could you set all of this up yourself in a terminal using aliases, PATH var and scripts? Sure you could. You could also go and write your own operating system from scratch. One of the key tenants of software in general is that it is stupid to reinvent the wheel. DEs may not be perfect, but none of them (that I know of) bar you from using the terminal quickly and easily if you need to. If your use case is personal computer use and not learning Linux so you can manage servers for your job, it's better to not burn out on learning a bunch of new syntax that is not immediately useful to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SpongeBob-yk9oo you've misplaced the burden of proof, the much more reasonable stance when you detach yourself from bias fostered since childhood is "how do you know that there is some cosmic force ensuring every person receives poetic, and honestly to some extent, petty and spiteful justice for perceived crimes during life?"
the real truth of it that you don't want to admit is, you believe it because it makes you feel better. because it would suck to live in a world where evil people get to just get away with it and die of natural causes. and it does suck, but it's also dumb to worry about things you never had any control over to begin with. it is, when you really think about it, stupid and childish to imagine that some guy is getting his butt poked by a devil with a pitchfork, despite you having never interacted with him just because you read about some stuff he did in a textbook
i don't even hate Christians, indeed, it's hard to deny their contributions to humanity, but the self serving "ahhhh yes the bad man is getting buggered!!" wank just has no place in a mature mind in my opinion. in the worst case it convinces people that inaction is fine because "well they're going to hell anyway"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wayne-x1h This is stupid, untrained behavior no matter how you slice it. This guy is strong but has no idea how to fight, so he applied the most extreme reaction he could come up with. Now he'll have to pay this guy's medical bills, hire a lawyer, show up to court, maybe even serve jail time. But hey, at least he has his "honor." I thought we were supposed to be the prudent smart people, not a bunch of medieval morons? A total lack of self-control is not manly. In fact, it is quite the opposite; a very feminine, emotional response.
It just goes to show you should train in martial arts. That way, instead of doing what this guy did, you can apply a technique that disables this guy without guaranteeing a trip to the hospital.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@invader_jim2837 You could make the same argument about kids. Kids don't have a political voice, very few take them seriously. They have greatly curtailed rights. How far are you willing to curtail them?
Logically and ethically speaking, the only thing that separates an unborn child, from a child, from an adult, is time. There was a choice made to connect both genitals together for enough time for conception to happen. Without further changes, a child emerges. I am willing to hear and hash out the arguments for when abortion should be allowed, but I am sick of pathetic people refusing to own up to the act. It is a loss of life, period. Our government, and now our own community, regards life with such callous disdain and yet so many pretend like abortion is an act of empathy. It isn't. Life has never had inherent virtue to humanity at large. It is perhaps the greatest and most laughable lie we tell ourselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@normtheteacher5485 Hey cool, maybe I'll check it out as I like videos like that (I've watched a lot of Paul Harrell videos as well).
I just post this because I've seen some weird behavior from people who exhibit the "cowboy mentality." A particular one comes to mind of a guy in a convenience store who is a firearms instructor. He was open carrying, had his range shirt on, etc. He was also a rather portly fellow and I'd venture to say not in the best of shape. In the security footage, some guy starts getting aggressively in his face and yells at him. No idea what he was saying because there was no audio, but he didn't even touch the instructor. The instructor kept backing away, backing away, drew his gun, backed himself into a corner, then shot the guy, all without being touched once. The guy died and the instructor got no charges. Now I am not someone who believes that an aggressor should receive no punishment, or that someone shouldn't stand their ground (in fact I think that would have gone a lot better had the instructor not immediately backed himself into a corner) but I do also believe that a person shouldn't be killed just for aggressively yelling. He may have been a drug addict in the worst moments of his life, or perhaps just mentally ill. In that particular circumstance the instructor could have just maced him and both could have come out alive and (relatively) unharmed. But I assume that, in his mind, he didn't "need" to carry mace because he can just shoot people who threaten him. Not the best attitude to have in my opinion. There are different levels of threat and a gun isn't the best solution to all of them. Sadly I can't find the link to this story now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How the fuck does one not realize the game is satire? It's like Starship Troopers dialed to eleven.
The praise is intentionally fake. It's suggesting that the Super Earth military churns out poorly trained recruits with an extremely high casualty rate, then covers that with praise and hype. Super Earth is what it would be like if the American military industrial complex controlled our development as a species for hundreds of years.
It's actually kind of well thought out, although not really told to the player explicitly. But the way the whole Galactic War is framed is bizarre. When you start thinking about the war in general and its logistics, you understand the narrative. Why are there entire destroyer-class ships with support crew assigned to these quickly trained recruits? And why are there so many of them and not capital ships like cruisers or carriers?
Because the entire war is a moneymaking scheme for defense contractors. This is intentionally designed to be the most expensive and wasteful way to wage war, to prolong the war, and thus the money flow, for as long as possible. Coincidentally, a lot of these goals also align with that of making a fun game, because Helldivers are supposed to be appealing for recruitment, and giving them tons of expensive toys to play with is good for business and morale.
Also, at one point, the bridge officer comments that the Terminids were former livestock. So in other words, a problem likely caused by the Super Earth government. The Automotons are likely a similar situation. These are problems intentionally caused by the government to create a legitimate-seeming excuse for war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@immatoll4375 "But back in 2023 no one was making a drama out of it [BG3] for not beeing d&d enough" you weren't paying attention then, the amount of people eternally fucking assmad that the game was not RTwP like previous Baldur's Gate games was absurd. it made me cringe because I played all the BioWare D&D CRPGs and after all that, I like them in spite of the fact they are RTwP not because of it. Meanwhile, I was cheering inside because I had been waiting for a D&D CRPG where you can FLY and JUMP with combat rules that actually followed the tabletop for decades now, with only Solasta coming out to show for that. and Solasta is good don't get me wrong, but it had its problems
RTwP just feels jank as fuck with the arbitrary "rhythm" of the actions, like I never asked for picking my actions to be a timing minigame with a cheat button. that's just an awkward gameplay concept right out of the gate. I got used to it after all my time playing with it, but the fact that I've gotten used to it and it still feels awkward means that it is bad by definition.
that's to say nothing of the contrarians existing to this day that have it out for Larian's writing staff, and seem to think Larian are "woke" despite the fact that Forgotten Realms was always a cringefest fan-fiction-tier universe and their camp style of writing fits like a glove, complete with Drow sexual fetish pandering. but goofy sex scenes with mind flayers and bears are meant to be taken 100% seriously apparently despite the rest of the camp and is therefore evidence of their "degeneracy." I mean for fuck's sakes, NWN's campaign had a Mary Sue character insert from one of the devs that became your employer and upstaged you at every opportunity. BG3 is far more interesting than many D&D CRPG campaigns. also pro-tip Gale isn't even the first guy to fuck Mystra in the setting. much of the cringiest parts of the lore existed before Larian ever put pen to paper
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PoeticMercury i don't normally like to play partisan, because both parties are shit and answer to the same corpos anyway, but this has been the democrat party's marketing MO since the 19th century at least. they target disadvantaged people (used to be the Irish/Italian immigrants) and promise them the world. if they're not disadvantaged (white women) they will convince them that actually, they are, and voting for them is the only way to fix that. statistically women vote democrat by a significant majority. the ones who don't are almost always married. white men can be excluded because while they are a significant part of the population, if they can convince every other group to vote for them, it won't matter.
when you combine this with the United States' population makeup, which despite what holier-than-thou Europeans or self-hating American academics will tell you, is the most diverse and multicultural first world nation on the planet, you get situations like this where minorities who have been convinced that everyone hates them are free to do whatever they want thanks to a lack of tough crime policy, voted against by, among others, women.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garymcjerry You're conflating individuals and groups. Individuals and groups behave differently, it's been shown many times in peer reviewed studies. I am aware that chicken and rice are very cheap and healthy enough. However let's not pretend that government sanctioned nutritional standards play no role at all in influencing society. Let's not pretend that every person is just as good at critical thought or sifting through bad information or misleading advertisements. These tactics have been shown to be effective at changing how society behaves and will be used time and time again. You will not be able to give a personal nutrition lecture to every American, British person, Mexican, Canadian, etc. At what point do you hold the elites and experts, people who should know better, accountable for knowingly distributing false information thanks to a bribe?
You're also vastly overinflating the "subjectiveness" of the difficulty of different jobs. Any job where you have deadlines set by your boss is going to harder for the vast majority of people than a job where you can choose when to go to the gym, choose when to stream, etc. The tradeoff, before the advent of streaming, used to be that you'd have to take a massive risk in starting your own business, and work extremely long hours especially at the beginning. I don't think I've ever heard a single person claim that starting your own business is easy. Now you can basically do that, but from your own home and usually without dealing with overhead things like payroll or HR. The biggest tradeoff for this is that "partnerships" for websites like YouTube and Twitch are terrible "contracts" that can render you cut off from your source of income for making a single mistake, but now there are many avenues of revenue (OnlyFans, Patreon, etc) so that risk is significantly reduced compared to what it was several years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tyler6971 OK, see now we're getting into the nitty gritty, and I have to ask whether you originally meant "Hosting a podcast/stream" versus "appearing on a podcast/stream." If I were to appear a couple times on a podcast, I wouldn't really give a shit. If I were the host, obviously I would care more, depending on whether or not it was my livelihood. But I would probably never host a podcast, because I prefer to engage in a more direct discussion like this one, and I feel like broadcasting it is a bit narcissistic.
"How is that any difference from an audience that isn't in the room?" Eh, you can't be made immediately accountable for the things you say? Seems kinda obvious to me. Also, if it's a live audience, they're more likely to be local people, which means you might meet them again in the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dadofducks You have cause and effect backwards. A person who has a functional life has no need, or time, for heroin. But they almost certainly drink alcohol -- you know, that drug everyone does that magically does not persuade functional people everywhere to become heroin addicts somehow. Hmm, total mystery there. By the same logic marijuana, or any other physically un-addictive drug, does not persuade anyone to become opioid drug addicts. The person who becomes a heroin addict was already a wreck to begin with, and they were looking for an exit to escape some trauma or terrible feelings in their life. Or worse, they were prescribed a certain addictive drug by their doctor and are unable to wean themselves off it, like morphine. But those drugs are legal so they're okay, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SirPlusOfCamelot Most of these techniques are just turbo-moronic in the grand scheme of things though. Especially in the US, where it is legal to carry some form of weapon in every state. Even if it weren't legal, I'd rather make pepper spray illegally (using real peppers and water and a squirt bottle) than perform these techniques.
The problem with teaching these techniques is that you give the people studying them a false sense of hope that they will be able to defend themselves in these situations, using only these techniques. Especially in the way he typically edits videos and posts shorts.
He is also extremely aggressive in assuming that a criminal with a gun will break down the moment you show resistance. That may be true a majority of the time, but the problem is when you're dealing with lethal weapons, you only need to fuck up one time for it to matter. There is a not-insignificant portion of criminals, especially career criminals, who are either insane or they've been doing what they do for so long that they're sick of jail and will do anything not to go back while also continuing to do what they know best. These are the types of guys who draw guns from their waistbands, with 2 or more cops looking directly at them, and get shot (but maybe shoot a cop in the process). I've seen security footage of guys who rob a convenience store with a gun and shoot the employees after they're done robbing, just because they could. These are not rational people and you can't just assume that they will be rational when your life is at stake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@w.ryannn "i find it crazy that majority of americans just care about more money in their pockets over the rights of their neighbors"
Really? Let's break it down politically.
Democrats want to appeal to the disadvantaged. How do they do so? By "promising" them rights. Promises which may or may not come to pass once they are in office. Rights are difficult to change in legislation. At best, they will promise you a welfare check. Something that, in the long term, increases prices, thus negating the point of the check entirely. Mass immigration compressing wages does not help either. The taxes they impose overwhelmingly affect the middle class more than anyone else, not the rich.
I don't particularly pledge allegiance to one party or the other, but I'm approaching this strategically. You can't appeal to financially struggling people by promising them abstract rights. They need money to stop struggling. And that money has to be earned by themselves, because they can never be sure when the government teat will stop providing milk. Lower taxes, which is usually the Republican platform, is the only thing that can provide this because it allows businesses to grow. As Bill Clinton said, probably the smartest thing he ever uttered: "It's the economy, stupid." Tariffs seem bad in the short term but in the long term it will allow local business to flourish because we will not outsource their products to China. At the same time it hurts one of our biggest rivals in the world, actively working to undermine us by buying our real estate among other things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nicholasryan17 I will agree that this game has a weak experience for new players, especially rogues. Map knowledge is crucial in this game, down to knowing which rooms/hallways the escape portals commonly spawn in (hint: don't spend time in the trap maze waiting, I made that mistake enough times) and not having it, along with the other perk slots, will result in a lot of deaths. However, there is also supposed to be an easier dungeon level for low level players which has not released yet, so that will probably make it at least a little better.
But at the end of the playtest, I was killing trios as a solo fighter with nearly no extra starting gear easily because I knew the map, knew what people were doing just based off sound from the next room, and knew how to approach them. One raid I even killed 5 people before escaping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shanks4Smiles staying alive isn't about being right, it's about being intelligent. the 2A, along with every other right, has no inherent virtue or ability to protect us. those who sit in the white house, right now, would completely delete the 2A if they could. but practically, they can't, because they can't snap their fingers and make 500 million+ guns, spread out across the 3rd largest nation in the world, disappear. implementing a total repeal of the 2A, even if it were successfully voted on, would be a total bloodbath for everyone involved. there is nothing backing the existence of rights except force and a polite agreement between the members of a society. the government owns a monopoly on the legal use of force. that leaves polite agreement, which isn't worth piss in an ocean.
the reason why the 2A is so important is because it continues to vest us with the means of force to make the other rights have meaning. to make it worth anything, a civilian must NECESSARILY ignore the legality of the use of force in some situations. if it were to go away, it may not make a difference, as long as enough of us agree to continue manufacturing and bearing arms, but eventually if the government is strong enough, that idea will be quashed
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AngelloDelNorte The cop was following up because this car (or, a car that looked like this one) evaded a stop from him the day prior. The video I watched didn't specify what the stop was for, but regardless, he had no way of knowing that it was actually the same car instead of a similar make and color. All cops incur risk when they walk up to a vehicle like that, true, but this cop escalated immediately. He could have knocked on the window, said "I'm Officer so-and-so, can I ask you a couple of questions," sussed out his reaction and determined where to go from there. When you go through a normal traffic stop, the cop doesn't ask you to step out immediately unless you were already evading as he stopped you. The guy had a lap and hands filled with fast food, it's safe to say the cop would have had time to react if the guy wanted to get violent. Instead he threw open the door and barked "Step out of the vehicle" which immediately puts them both on edge. Even more insanely he shot the guy for trying to drive away instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest, calling backup, or doing anything else despite the fact that the guy never threatened him.
This reflects a problem a lot of moron cops seem to have. They reach a foregone conclusion before they even talk to a civilian and are as stubborn as a jackass about it, even in the face of mounting evidence. Another bodycam video I saw involved 2 cops responding to a report of shoplifting in a store. They walk around the store, see some random black guy who didn't match the description, and one of the cops decides it's him even as dispatch tells them the description again. The partner didn't correct him either. To this rookie, the guy driving the car is the same car he saw yesterday, AND he evaded the stop because he is clearly a violent criminal, he decided all of this with no evidence which led to his irrational course of action.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EnRaye There's a recent book, On the Origin of Time: Stephen Hawking's Final Theory, that delves into the topic in-depth. It's quite cerebral, and I've only read a small part of it so far, but there are a surprising amount of physics scientists that delve into this topic. Needless to say, it's hotly debated, but it makes sense if you start from the point of reason that quantum mechanics dictates that the universe actually changes when it is observed by man, among a few other things. Of course, this principle (aka the Schrodinger's Cat principle) is itself based on our own observation. In my opinion this causes a cycle of infinite regression. We observe test results and dictate they must be affected by our own observation because nothing else explains it. But that, itself, is one of our own observations. And my observation of that is also human. You can regress this infinitely. You, reading this comment, are also arguably affected by this. We cannot be sure that our own observations are reliable and that there is not another phenomenon at play here.
However, there was a principle formulated in the 1970s called the "anthropic principle" which takes this idea to its logical conclusion: the reason why we are in a universe that is "suited to life" is because we are observing it. I think it's self-evident why this theory is controversial. Substitute man for another observer, like God, and you're a theist.
I'd recommend reading the book if you're interested on what Hawking thought of God, and how he constructed an environmentally-based theory to explain the universe, in large part to spite theists and the anthropic principle. By enviromentally-based, I mean sort of like Darwinism or natural selection. It goes deep into multiverse theory and such.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blargcoster People like you can't see past your own nose, it's quite depressing, really. Yes, in this photo, I'm sure the guns are unloaded and completely safe. However, this is more likely than not evidence of a habit -- standing downrange to load your guns. Which means that every time they go to that range, they do this. Now, how much money are you willing to bet that every single time they go to the range, and perform this bad habit, that they won't make another mistake? How much more money are you willing to bet that this isn't indicative of an attitude problem, one where the reins continually slip? Once you get 2 or 3 mistakes deep, due to your laziness and false sense of competence... then someone dies.
This is bad enough if a civilian does it. But a federal agent, who is supposed to be the authority on gun safety and regulation...? Come on. How many boots do you lick per hour?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caskap Every time I see a post like this, I wonder what parallel universe your message was transposed from. Here's a laundry list that might illustrate how ridiculous you sound.
- Has hyperinflation gotten to the point that Americans can't buy bread with cash?
- Are prostitutes and drug addicts walking around in the town square of the capital without fear or shame?
- Was there recently a world war that we lost, that left hundreds of thousands of veterans with an uncertain future in frustration and disarray?
- Was the prior administration so weak and disorganized that it was being subverted by militia armies of the aforementioned veterans, operating fully in the open, which they could do almost nothing about? (I don't like Biden, but let's be realistic, here.)
- Did we get slapped with a shockingly high reparations mandate from a coalition of nations more powerful than us (haha) in the loss of the aforementioned war, one that seems impossible to pay?
- Was our nation lagging behind terribly on industrialization and unable to compete with other world economies before Trump got in office?
- Did Trump run as a third party candidate that had to make a coalition with the Republicans?
- Did Trump quite literally stab his fellow party members in the back when he won the election because they expected him to work with the traditional Republicans or provide on false promises?
- Is there an emergency powers clause in our Constitution that allows a ruler to wield absolute power, indefinitely?
- In an extreme twist of fate, did a radical man commit a heinous act of terrorism that allowed the clause to be triggered shortly after he was elected?
If your answer was "no" to all of these, as it should have been because it reflects fact, then I'm not exactly sure how the state of our nation or Trump's campaign is similar to the person you are referencing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ISeeWaffles The Germans actually did not vote "for Hitler" specifically, it was quite a tragic time because the traditional conservative party wanted to be in power again. The liberal party was the one who ruled during the Weimar Republic and they were extremely unpopular due to residing over it during the Great Depression, and on top of that, the harsh penalties imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. However the conservatives had trouble gaining grassroots support, because they were identified as "the Kaiser Wilhelm party." The Nazis had started to gain good grassroots support because of fear of Communism -- there was real street-fighting between Nazis and Communists in Berlin at the time, which Hitler participated in. There was also not a small amount of resentment held by German veterans from the last war, who felt that Britain and France had done them dirty with the treaty, and a lot of them supported the Nazi party. So the conservatives made a deal with the Nazis where Hitler would be placed as chancellor if people voted for the conservative party. It worked, but you'd just be voting "for the conservatives" if you were voting as a German. And as we know, the Nazi party leadership basically backstabbed everyone to get into total power at that point, abusing an emergency powers loophole to stay in total power (just like Julius Caesar did, coincidentally).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1