Lurker > Pogo_Marimo

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

You make some fucked posts.

I didn't do this, man. You're shooting the messenger.

Don't be mad at me, go complain to your local congress person if you don't like it. Jfc.

Couldn't say, I don't know the guy.

Okay.

I'm not the least bit shocked. Massive game companies tend to be shit, but massive Chinese game companies tend to be twice so.

When the cryptofascism becomes less crypto everyday.

My god's not dead he is surely alive he's living on the inside roaring like a lion

TheFuzz3451 posted...

Corporate America is pretty okay with fascism because fascism doesn't touch their profits

This is pretty much not true, but that doesn't mean its not their perception.

The reality is that fascism cripples trust in many critical free market institution which tends to cause large-scale withdrawal of capital in the market and a lack of investment. Oligarchs then use the opportunity and direct political intervention to seize distressed or undervalued assets which allows them to accumulate power and become an institution in and of themselves. Which is how most oligarchic systems develop historically. Some of those that are standing at the top benefit, and some of them get thrown out of windows.

Tom_Joad posted...

Not to mention that this was between a Krav Maga expert and a novice with a bat.

Let's see that with a master of the club against a unskilled hand-to-hand fighter.

I wonder how that'd end up?

I posted like 6 videos where this exact thing happened, and as far as I'm aware none of them were experts in bat defense.

A bat is simply not going to incapacitate someone if they successfully shield themselves with their forearm and step in. You can move faster forwards than you can backwards, especially if the bat user has no training on footwork in martial arts.

Tom_Joad posted...

Ah, yes. In the midst of battle and your sword has been blunted, the famous "time-out" to sharpen your sword.

How could we forget that?

"Has been blunted" it's not a status effect in a video game, dude. I've NEVER read accounts of bladed weapons getting "too dull" over the span of a single battle to be useless. I've heard of lots of weapons breaking, but never "too dull" unless it had not been maintained. A blade would absolutely accumulate chips and damage, but that would be nearly inconsequential in the short term to using it as a weapon. Worst case scenario the chipped section would tear at flesh instead of cleaning cutting through, causing... Essentially the same degree of injury regardless.

Even besides that, there were long lulls during battle. People didn't fight for the 8 or 9 straight hours that many battle lasted, and could absolutely carry a whetstone with them to push some of the spars of the edge back into place if they wanted to. They probably wouldn't, because it's inconsequential, but they could.

ssjevot posted...

Trump's most popular issue were anti-immigration and anti-trans stuff. Tons of polls before, during, and after the election showed this. His most popular EOs are the anti-immigration (outside of birthright citizenship removal, which still somehow has almost 50% support) and anti-trans ones.

Most Americans are not good people. They do not agree with us on these issues. That's reality. You have to accept these people aren't on our side and stop thinking the problem is we didn't tell them enough how much we care about immigrants and trans people.

And no Palestine isn't popular either. Americans are fed a massive diet of Israeli propaganda (though the younger generation is much less pro-Israel, but they also don't vote and therefore don't matter for elections).

More to the Palestine point, Americans wouldn't give a shit about Palestine even if the coverage was favorable to Palestine. Just like they don't care about any of the violence in Sub-Saharan Africa or Southeast Asia. Making "World Police" a key part of your campaign has always been a catastrophically bad. Activist who want us to be world police for whatever their pet cause is has always been damaging to the election. You can make your moral arguments all you want but if your political ACTIONS hand control to the party that makes things way worse, then YOU are part of the problem too. It's not a moral failing, but it is a failing of competency.

Tom_Joad posted...

Swords didn't really hold an edge very well during the 700-1100s, at least, not in many places in Europe.

Dawg, they knew how to sharpen blades. It didn't matter that the metallurgy wasn't great. It just meant you had to shsrpen them more. It meant nothing to whether someone would carry a blade or a wooden club.

I get the impression that you actually have no idea what you're talking about and are just throwing shit at the wall.

On a similar note, I'm watching Welcome to the NHK for the first time. It's pretty solid, although I didn't expect it to be so horny lol. The description makes it seem like it would be drenched in paranoia and conspiracy theories but it's a pretty grounded narrative.

Some faceless execs at Fandom

divot1338 posted...

https://youtu.be/UM6QFTPr3u4?si=4eX5NTZXdGYvq9Ws

Watch the amount of pain this fool has when he hits his hands.

Now realize that the first thing Im going to do is knock that fucking knife across the room. And probably shatter your hands.

1st: He doesn't look like he's in very much pain at all, although this does bring to mind the fact that most of you have never actually been in a fight or practiced combat sports before.

2nd: Any half-wit you fight with a knife isn't going to be holding it out in front of themselves waiting for you to knock it away. They're going to have it close to their body with their off-hand in front ready to shield their body or grab at your bat.

DrizztLink posted...

I've got to be honest, "why would you worry about aim in a fight" is a new one for me.

I get the impression people think someone with a knife is trying to fence with their bat opponent. They're not. They're blitzing in, grabbing them by their sweatshirt, and stabbing as quickly as possible at center mass.

You can stick a knife anywhere in a persons body and it will have a signficant effect. And if it doesn't, you can try it again because it take all of a quarter second to stab someone at arms length.

Powdered_Toast posted...

Yeah, but what if I swing real hard though, like in Smash Bros. and the guy's bones explode and then he goes flying?

If we're talking a Homerun Bat then you can toss everything I said out of the window.

I'm going to be blunt here. No, a baseball bat will not incapacitate someone unless you hit them HARD in the head or knee. I've seen a LOT of people tank baseball bat hits in videos online. I can go find some videos right now. None of these feature particularly graphic violence or blood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8iRHZrw-7Y&ab_channel=SoCalCode3

Cop here blocks the bat with his upper arm. Somehow the bat doesn't implode his arm and send him into immediate shock, as the cop then immediately disarms the man and subdues him with grappling.

https://www.newsflare.com/video/617084/shocking-road-rage-sees-mma-fighter-take-down-two-thugs-in-uk

Here, that superb reach advantage no longer helps the assailant after the very first swing misses--The lesson here is that "reach advantage" is a more nuanced thing than a tape measure can tell you. Blunt weapons do not dominate space the same way a bladed or pointed weapon does because a blunt weapon needs both time and distance to inflict significant wounds, whereas a blade or knife can maim with only a few pounds of pressure. Anyone who has practiced HEMA can confirm that the tip of a spear is far, far, far more effective at utilizing your a reach advantage than any blunt weapon could.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1919302/Video-Two-gangs-violently-fought-baseball-bats.html

These lads just wail on each other with pipes and bats. You can see some fairly impactful blows land on the shoulders, back, and front torso of these blokes but they hardly even flinch thanks to the adrenaline. The force from these blows, if done with a bladed weapon, would have likely been fatal. Instead, we see the lads clinching with each other and getting tuckered out from the tussle. What you will NEVER see when a knife is involved is two folks getting tuckered out and clinching with each other while they both rethink how much they want to continue the fight.

https://ifunny.co/video/dude-brings-baseball-bat-to-street-fight-and-gets-his-hClrhBgc7

Here we see the value of "reach" is only relevant if you even know how to take advantage of it. For anyone who has ever practiced martial arts or HEMA can tell you, short distances can be very quickly bypassed by an aggressive attacker with momentum. Have you ever practiced maintaining distance in a sparring match? How's your footwork? Do you know the correct ways to move forward and backwards without compromising your balance and striking base? If not, you might be surprised how little advantage something as long as a baseball bat affords you.

There is something I can say very confidently about knives: They are extremely simple to use and extremely simple to kill with. That's because they are, obviously, designed to create a mechanical advantage for the user, and they are extremely good at it. A bit needs to be swung with a great deal of force to fracture bone and cause serious damage. A knife needs only a few pounds of pressure to kill someone, and this could be accomplished with as little effort as simply leaning down on top of the knife and letting gravity do the rest of the work.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1w16fd

Here, we see again the incredible defensive power of the forearm, where it somehow deflects the bat attack without causing instant shock or unconsciousness in the defender. As is often the trend with baseball bats and other cudgels, as soon as the first strike is blocked the bat user is quickly rushed and grappled. While a bat can certainly break the forearm, in a life or death situation the fracture is very unlikely to actually seriously maim the victim. Instead, it's likely to be non-compound fracture that does not cause significant soft tissue injury and does not stop the function of the arm (or leg). You will likely still be able to grapple with someone with a broken forearm or hand. Real life isn't an RPG with an arbitrary limb damage system.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3p27vf

Another video just to demonstrate that, no, baseball bats don't have some exceptional stopping power. Blows to the shoulders and arms are not going to stop an assailant from grabbing you or the bat, and unfortunately for you, the shoulders and arms are where your hits are probably going to land if your opponent is capable of protecting themselves.

https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/wshhE214i8yz421Oua0z/wildin-dude-brings-out-a-baseball-bat-during-a-quick-road-rage-fight-in-florida

Just another example of two bros BOTH shrugging off hits from the bat, exchanging control of the bat back and force, then getting tuckered out and de-escalating from fatigue alone whilst close enough to kiss each other on the lip. I would love to show you an example of this kind of de-escalation happening with a knife, but it doesn't happen. Knives are just too dangerous for people to replicate this with them.

What I cannot show you is videos of people shrugging off knife hits because those wounds are typically enough to at least cause significant bleeding regardless of location. People absolutely do survive knife attacks but there are no "insignificant" stab wounds short of the most superficial glancing hits.

If you want, you can also go look up hospital reports between knife attack victims and baseball bat attack victims. What you will find is that people who are attacked with knives... Die way more often, need critical care far more often, and sustain permanent organ and tissue damage far more often. A baseball bat is nearly only effective if you land a hit on the head. Otherwise, your ribs and muscular system can do a great job at absorbing the impact of a bat. Humans are not particularly fragile things. Evolution has given us a skeletal-muscular system that's specialized at absorbing blunt force trauma and surviving, but it has not done the same for piercing wounds.

You probably have this concept of "I'll do a big swing and my opponent will block with his forearm perpendicularly to the blow and his ulnar with fold in half and his arm will fall limp at his side and the knife will drop from him hand!". That's not how real fights work. Most of the time either someone gets a lucky hit to the head immediately, or more likely, the two fall into a sloppy clinch after the first exchange of blows glances off each other and they fall to the ground. If one side has a knife during this second phase, they are probably going to win the fight (And kill the other person) unless the opponent can take the knife from them.

DrizztLink posted...

I repeat my earlier question because I honestly don't know:

Yes, there are polehammers. They are generally fairly short as far as polearms go, but they weren't uncommon in knightly combat. They did usually have secondary striking surfaces as well though. They are usually only associated with armored combat between two knights or well-funded professional soldiers, though, since blunt weapons require a great deal more commitment and risk compared to bladed or pointed weapons.

There is also the goedendag, which is a simple spike spear with a round blunt striking surface. There was also two-handed flails, which were more of an improvised peasant weapons.

Accolon posted...

Did... did Harris focus on those two things?

...?

Did I say she did? Did you read the OP?

I hope this is well and clear to everybody, but campaigning on "Trans Rights" and "Palestine" is very stupid. Americans don't elect the nicest and most morally upstanding person president. They elect the person they think is going to make their lives easier. If you go out there and put the spotlight on a (for some reason, contentious) tiny fraction of the population and a foreign muslim nation, average Americans are going to think you don't care about their problems at all.

The "price of eggs" is the excuse conservatives use because they're afraid to admit their regressive culture war is why they voted for Trump. It's always been culture war.

To be frank, even if you're in one of the few states that mandates showing the radar, you're probably doing yourself more harm than good asking for it considering:

1. You almost certainly were actually speeding
2. The RADAR almost certainly captured that you were speeding.
3. The only chance you have of getting a warning instead of a ticket is showing contrition for the act of speeding, and adopting a confrontational attitude by questioning the cops competence and truthfulness is a sure-fire way to eliminate any good faith you might be able to garner.

The thing that anti-cop people don't explain when they advise you to do all this dumb shit (Recording the police, refusing to talk to them, ect.) is that cops generally do issue lots of warnings instead of citations if you just act like a polite and normal person who can take basic accountability for your behavior. Yes, even if you're a minority.

Now, if you've committed some actual crime then the story is different. But I'm not a defense attorney so I'm not out here trying min-max people out of a criminal conviction.

viewmaster_pi posted...

personally i agree with this. sure, he could have just called the cops or animal control or whatever, but then how much time do the pitbulls have to leave his yard, get into someone else's, attack someone on the sidewalk, their front yard, etc.

bullshit charge, bullshit dogs

I don't want my neighbor firing off their gun right next to my house unless they absolutely have to. It's not like I haven't had dangerous animals going through my neighborhood, either. This is why we have professional animal control.

The article makes it sound like he had gotten his dog into the house THEN shot the two dogs. If that's the case, then yeah he should be charged. Self-defense/defense of property requires the threat to be imminent. His dog is no longer in danger if it's in the house. Illegal discharge of a firearm.

bluezero posted...

I'm sorry, what?

I can explain.

There are no consequences for lying when you're an AG.

I'm pretty good at developing intuitive understanding about how the natural world works, but knots have and always will confound me. I have almost no capacity for understanding all the different uses and design of knots.

It's a decent show but my god the visual direction is god awful. I get sometimes you use the flat wide shots because it enhances the awkwardness of certain scenes but can you use some fucking blocking and movement once in a while instead of cycling between three stationary closeups and a wide every. fucking. scene?

No.

eaglei3 posted...

Oh, nice. I am ready to rage at incoming from off screen Exploding Kunai on harder difficulties. If that is still a think after all these years.

All good Shinobis should have a 6 sense for off-screen projectiles.

Even white parents should have this talk. Trust me when I say white people constantly make their own interactions with police far worse than they need to be by being combatative and non-cooperative. It doesn't matter what your skin color is, if you refuse police orders or start acting disorderly the police are going to charge you.

It will, of course, be worse for black people/minorities on average though. You cannot afford to give the cops any length of rope to hang your with because you don't know how much of a racist bastard your officer is.

Because Trump is doing a lot of things through Executive Orders, of which some are almost certainly going to be over-turned by Federal courts. Birth right citizenship, for instance, is such a clearly written right in the Constituion that I doubt even a majority of Conservative judges would rule against it (Alito and Thomas probably would because they're authoritarian bootlickers who dream of a conservative dictator ruling the country by decree).

Furthermore, it's a lot easier to break things that already exist (By defunding or disbanding) than it is to create something new (Which usually requires legislative power). So when Obama wants to create a Universal Healthcare program to help the poor and disenfranchised, he needs broad authorization from Congress. When Trump wants to kill FEMA, he just tells his cabinet secretary to cut their funding.

He probably broke the dude's fucking ribs with that front slam tbqh. That was gnarly. He's lucky he didn't break the dude's skull open and kill him.

Beal says No, so it doesn't matter.

012yArthur0 posted...

Probably because the game that tried to be so anti-horny that just imploded like Concord and eastern games that embrace it like Wukong and Stellar Blade are being successes, not to mention Gacha increasing relevance in the gaming industry that never shied away with fanservice. And now there are Marvel Rivals that essentially told anyone complaining about Male Gaze to pound sand.

I think the pendulum will swing back and will swing hard. Get ready for stuff like MK9 and DoA levels in the future.

Wukong was a horny game...? There was almost no women in it.

The huge commercial success those games have is that they targeted the East Asian/Chinese market specifically with their themes and protagonists, while still being well-made.

Gacha games may as well be an entirely self-contained segment of the video game industry considering how wildly different they're designed, monetized, and marketed compared to traditional game titles. Yes, Gacha games are horny and have always been horny. They also have an extremely under-sized footprint in how the influence non-Gacha Games with their success.

012yArthur0 posted...

I think he means horniness in AAA games, especially the west. There was moments where there were some weird censorships like reducing cleavage or mocking overly skimpy outfits.

I think it is about to die down because the big studios are slowly relearning that the biggest demographics are always horny people.

I think 2024 was probably the least horny year in decades as far as major studio releases go. I'm not so sure that's the lesson developers are learning.

Dakimakura posted...

They exist but are more of a niche genre rather than mainstream popular and culturally accepted. For horny to be accepted, it should be considered an addition to any game.

Horny is accepted when it's a reasonable addition to the core gameplay.

If explicitly horny games are not culturally accepted then maybe there's your hint as to why people get annoyed when you shoehorn Horny into otherwise non-horny games.

Video games can be horny. Go play Living With Sister: Monochrome Fantasy. No ones complaining about it being horny.

"Safe zones" never really made sense anyway but it's not like we can otherwise trust conservatives to conduct themselves with even a shred of empathy or nuance.

I don't know how America doesn't "understand" Republicans by this point. They've done everything possible to show what they're priorities are. It goes like this

1. Rich White Conservative Men
2. White Conservative Men
3. Rich Minorities/Foreigners

A gap

4. White Conservative Women
5. Conservative minorities

Another gap

6. White Liberal men
7. White Women
8. Minorities
9. Legal Immigrants
11. Everyone else.

"Mom, I want a Tin Pot Dictator!"

"We have a Tin Pot Dictator at home, honey."

Tin Pot Dictator at home:

My first thought was, "Russian or Chinese?"

Russian.

Humble_Novice posted...

Sadly, there exists a pipeline for progressives to devolve into tankies. I only hope none of us ever fall hard into that hole where sanity and common sense do not exist.

We can pearl clutch over tankies but the reality is they have almost no political influence in our government and that's probably never going to change. Even as a voting bloc they are tiny and flaku.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Guide seems to be under the impression that... we think this is a thing that's about to imminently happen or something? I frankly have no idea why he thinks he'a providing some kind of insightinto the topic.

We all know he's just yapping. We are judging him based on the fact that only a deranged asshole would say this shit to an audience of thousands of strangers on Twitch, and sharing these opinions encourages and promotes this way of thinking to his (likely stupid) "fanbase".

Guide posted...

Talking shit about a theoretical scenario vs saying what you would do when it's a real scenario are entirely different things. This is a very basic concept that I'm flabbergasted is even being discussed.

If I Did It: Confessions of the Deadbeat Dad

LightSnake posted...

"why are you getting into the bathtub with your teenage housekeeper when she's there the first night? Why are you going for your tenants with power of eviction?"

Just to clarify facts, though I don't think they're particularly important--Pavlovich was around 23 or 24 years old during her first encounter with Gaiman, and when Gaiman first came on to her (And, by Scarlett's description, raped her), she was not their tenant. She was babysitting as a favor. After that incident Amanda had offered her a full-time position (Again, not knowing until several months later Gaiman had a sexual relationship with her).

None of this is relevant to Gaiman's legal and moral culpability though, but those are the facts as presented by the article.

LightSnake posted...

I don't care who's poly. Defending Gaiman's behavior with Palmer here is pretty gross in light of everything we see when Palmer entrapped a vulnerable woman in her home and knew enough to be "Neil, promise me you won't fuck this one."

I'm not "defending Gaiman's behavior". The story with the other lady is entirely superfluous to the actual victim here, Scarlett Pavlovich. It's a throwaway line paragraph to paint Palmer as a Ghislaine type figure in what happened to Pavlovich, but the circumstances in those two incidences are entirely different and not relevant. Again, the article is trying to paint around an implication about Amanda that the author and editor very clearly realize they cannot prove with the evidence they've gotten to this point. If the author felt they could prove Amanda was intentionally bringing women to Gaiman to be sexually assaulted and raped they would have said as much. They can't, so they left in the article a very under-developed side story about their sexual lifestyle with another consenting adult that, if you exclude or underemphasize important details, sounds "suspicious".

Smashingpmkns posted...

Just finished it. Man, that was awful. Gaiman is scum of the earth and Palmer is fucking awful too. Instead of assisting the victim with the police she turned this whole thing into a song. Eat shit lady.

I feel absolutely awful for the victims and Gaiman/Palmer's son.

Not assisting with the police is the only particularly shitty thing I think Palmer did in all this to be frank. At the same time, they are going through a messy divorce and Neil Gaiman presumably has a fairly large legal team that could make her life a living hell and compromise her ability to get custody of her child if she started to cooperate with the police against Gaiman.

LightSnake posted...

I'm sorry, but Palmer in the article passed a lover she was tired of to Gaiman. She's basically "Hey, want to come over to our remote house and babysit? My husband has a really bad dark side, but I know you need money, so whatever." Before you even address the level knowledge she might've had about his behavior she was apparently fine with them using vulnerable women as unpaid labor which is bad enough as it is

Her excuse pretty much boils down to, "I knew he had treated so many young woman like that in the past but I told him not to do that to you."

She wasn't unpaid labor either. She was given housing in exchange for her nanny services, which were irregular and, by the description of the article, certainly not full-time employment. As far as nanny's go, this is pretty common fare.

The "Passed a lover" is an entirely different person, and the woman was planning to have sex with Gaiman in email correspondence with Amanda before she went to meet him. That's how shit happens in the fetish community. You can decide if that upsets your personal morals or not but that entire situation was entirely consensual and with explicit understanding from everybody involved.

Yes, she was under the understanding that he only did BDSM stuff with consenting adults prior to this situation. She was never informed prior to Scarlett's policy report in 2023 that he was sexually abusing women in non-consensual circumstances. So when she asked Neil not to have sex with the new nanny it was under the preconceived notion that Gaiman was not a rapist and thus would avoid having sex with Scarlett, or at the very least... Not rape her.

The article is using language about their consensual fetish community to paint a picture of Amanda Palmer being permissive about non-consensual sexual activities. That is not what the actual evidence shows. If the article had a smoking gun showing Amanda say, "Yeah, he has sexually assaulted a bunch of women in the past, it's not just you" the article would have quoted that. Instead it's a bunch of cut context "quotes" that imply some degree of malfeasance from her.