Lurker > Master Kazuya

Complete_Idi0t posted...

I want to have sex but you'd better not ask directly for some reason tee hee

Lol pretty much
---

itt my post is the best

Leanaunfurled posted...

I assume she found him attractive, as it was a match. some people use the app for hookups, some use it for dating (which I personally don't get but hey). Girl sounds like the latter, so when TC opened up with sex, it probably turned her off.

I mean that's probably what happened in a literal sense, but I meant like, how can someone use this app without understanding what it's used for, or not understand that some people use it for just hooking up? And even then, it's like, she could've just said no. Her saying ew just looks bad on her part too because it's like she's only in it for the validation.
---

itt my post is the best

It's like, why match with me if you're just gonna insult me.
---

itt my post is the best

St0rmFury posted...

Will this match affect their win/lose count?

I feel like it should only effect Mayweather's record because they are playing by boxing rules. If it was MMA rules, it should effect Conor's record.
---

itt my post is the best

MuayThai85 posted...

He's a bigger douche than Mayweather and that's nearly impossible.

Idk, you can clearly tell McGregor has fun with his shit talk and just likes to rile stuff up. He's shit talking while making jokes and stuff and clearly enjoys the 'sport' of it. Plus, it brings hype to be that kind of personality. And by him being like that, just saying whatever the fuck he wants, he's gotten some sort of immunity where he can have any sort of public persona and people will like him. He never has to bend to anyone because no big time TV producers wants to lose out on the viewership he brings. Also, again, McGregor has no criminal record like Mayweather does, so it's easy to see which one is the douche just to play the role and which one is really a douche.
---

itt my post is the best

Conor Mcgregor is a way more entertaining guy, seems pretty chill (seems ironic), and doesn't beat his wives. I hope Mayweather gets rocked, even though it's not likely.
---

itt my post is the best

REMercsChamp posted...

"We are talking about going to back to your place for a one night stand, aren't we?"

AsucaHayashi posted...

"yeah but i'm just in the mood for some netflix and chill... how about you?"

She didnt suggest a date, she just asked what I'm doing Sat night. I just want to clear up the potential implication that its a date or something.
---

itt my post is the best

We were talking and she asked if I was free Saturday night. I don't want to go on a date, I just want to hookup. What should I say? "What did you have in mind?" or something?
---

itt my post is the best

Bad_Mojo posted...

TC, PLEASE give me your thoughts on this guy -

Any reason you really want to know my opinion? Just curious.

Anyway, I think the first song is the best of the bunch. His enunciation is really good and his flow is skilled without him trying to hard to be way too technical or forcing rhyme schemes. That beat was fucking awesome. I think this song could've used a chorus or something though, just for organizational purposes but that's just me.

The next two songs were obviously just him having some fun trying to fit as many references as he could, pretty entertaining, kinda reminds me of Gambino just trying to fit as many puns as he can into a cypher.

Last song was whatever.

Overall he seems good.
---

itt my post is the best

Lots of travel time coming up, some people/groups I like are Paramore, Eminem, Drake, Kid Cudi, Deadmau5, All That Remains, Alicia Keys, ODEZA, Pretty Lights, Foster the People, Tupac, Three Days Grace, Radiohead, Kings of Leon, among other stuff.
---

itt my post is the best

bumnp
---

itt my post is the best

which one
---

itt my post is the best

You're doing that thing where "but clearly what happened is the way it should've happened, because it did happen" thing that people do to justify literally any plot hole in any work of fiction. A lot of that is you projecting characterization and scenes in places that didn't exist in the actual medium. With that type of justification, no bad characters exist anywhere, no plots are ever convoluted, no plot holes exist, no confusing scenes exist, nothing needs to ever happen. Hell, why even have detective movies where we see the detective go to work. We should just assume they solved the case because who ever cares about why. We have our own brains to fill in the gaps. Why even watch movies at all, we should just watch the intro and ending and talk about what our brains came up with in between that could've possibly linked Scene A to Scene Z.

Even if that IS the justification for it, it's not in the fucking episode. There isn't even a scene IMPLYING that's what happens. Unless you count the ending scene as the implication. But then, see above.

She was extremely conflicted.

Are you bored or something and see that I'll bite? She does the same thing to another man previously in the episode. She constantly changes around venues within SJ because she does not want permanence there. She has the same conversation previously in the episode to a lesser extent to try and get that message across to Yorkie. She has a conversation with the doctor at the retirement home saying that she doesn't like staying there. She has a conversation with Yorkie saying that she personally finds the idea of getting sucked into SJ disgusting. She has her climax scene where she says that she fundamentally cannot stay in SJ because it dishonors the death of her husband and daughter. Guess what she does not have a scene of. That's right, reconciliation with the previous 59 minutes leading up to that point with Yorkie and her changing her mind. Again, that scene does NOT exist.

It's sorta like most romantic movies

Except in a romantic movie, the central theme is the romantic relationship between the two leads. There is indeed some sort of a relationship between the two leads in the episode, but the central theme is the two leads having completely different motivations for staying in SJ. Therefore, the actual clash of the different ideologies is imminent, whereas in a romantic movie, the relationship staying together is imminent. If you don't believe me that that was the theme, then go revisit the episode. I pointed out the examples of Kelly not wanting permanence there, but Yorkie DOES desire permanence, through perpetually going every weekend to the same spot with false hope of meeting her, going out of her comfort zone just for her, begging her to stay, guilt tripping her to stay, and choosing to pass over in SJ.

Yorkie's central characterization is that she's lesbian in a strict, conservative family and ends up paraplegic as a result of her grief from her family rejecting her. She finds direct solace in Kelly. Kelly's central characterization is that she's living out the rest of her time having fun before she permanently dies, and the reason she wants to permanently die is to honor her dead husband and daughter. She finds solace in the temporary way she treats SJ. Temporary vs Permanent. Those are HUGELY different and not romantic movie at all. For the fucking last time, if there is an implied temporary-to-permanent transition that Kelly has, not only does it take away key scenes in the episode, but it is also nowhere to be found.

Let's also not forget that in a romantic movie, the scene where they regret it actually fucking happens. It's not like, girl thinks guy is cheating in big misunderstanding, next scene they are eating brunch and don't mention it. They fucking mention it.

I'm done speaking to you about this.
---

itt my post is the best

Darmik posted...

Wouldn't this be when she met Yorkie in the hospital in a coma?

You have the scenes backwards. Kelly visits Yorkie before she says she cant stay with her, not after.

Yorkie needs someone to sign off on her waiver to pass over, and a spouse works. Kelly has the idea to get married to her for the sole reason the waiver. After the virtual marriage, Yorkie begs and pleads her that she should stay there, and even says Kelly's husband refusing to stay in SJ was selfish of the husband. Kelly gets pissed, reveals her entire backstory, and says that she only did this to let Yorkie pass over and that she only had pity for Yorkie, not love, and leaves her. It cuts to the real world and Kelly says she's ready for the rest of it (implying she's ready for death). And then boom, out of nowhere, they're back together.

Basically, just rewatch the episode. If the scenes were in the order you suggested, perhaps it could've been justified, but they're in the reverse order.
---

itt my post is the best

Q: Have you seen the Reddit theory that suggests Kelly and Yorkie don’t really end up together at the end of “San Junipero”?


Charlie Brooker: Yeah, it’s bullshit! They do! They have the happiest ending imaginable. What they are facing is a potentially difficult future because it could be, like Kelly says, it’s potentially forever. But as Yorkie points out, they can end it at any time. So it’s not a big rainbow sandwich, but what appears to be happening there, is happening there. It’s them, they drive off into the sunset together—because, why not?

>because, why not?


Wow, fuck you Charlie Brooker.


Source, http://www.vogue.com/article/black-mirror-creator-charlie-brooker-san-junipero
---

itt my post is the best

Regardless of what you're defending or why, the "happy" portion is not what I'm here to discuss at all. Happy, idealistic, fake, bittersweet paradise, whatever you want to call it. It's semantics and I don't care to dissect how much of a paradise San Junipero really is.

The fact of the matter is you don't establish such strong character ideals and then completely 180 those ideals WITHOUT even more powerful and convincing ideal-reversing scenes taking place.

There are a couple of ways I can think of that could justify the scene of Kelly taking permanency there which, for the umpteenth time, goes directly against what she said. (And not just what she said, but the base of her entire motivation for absolutely everything she did in the hour long episode)

1) not have her have that goodbye-Yorkie scene at all, and she eventually realizes that Yorkie (or permanent love) is what she wanted all along (which contradicts other parts of the episode, which is still bad)
2) somehow find out that her husband and daughter could be visited in Junipero (which goes against their deaths, which is still bad)
3) Yorkie fabricates a completely fake Kelly (if they had shown 1 usb stick or whatever instead of two, this ending would've actually been perfect)
4) Yorkie has hallucinations of seeing Kelly that then keep disappearing (would be a slightly sad/discomforting ending but still would've worked)
5) Kelly stays in San Junipero longer and longer until she's addicted to it (which goes against what she said earlier and what she's been doing, and that theme was already established with the other side characters which she said she didn't want to become, which would be sloppy and lazy writing)


Like, imagine some male character that is protesting the war because killing is bad and whatnot. He lost his parents because of war and he doesn't want other people to suffer the same thing. Next scene, he's strapped to a mini gun and letting hell loose on a bunch of civilians in enemy territory. And then the movie ends. Now clearly there are some scenes missing. Obviously he flip flopped everything he was about, and for some reason, decided to let his vengeance fuel him, but why? Am I just supposed to fill in this gaping plot hole with my own imagination? Or what? Imagine if the rest of the movie continued like that and it turned into an action flick with absolutely no mention of the whole "war is bad" theme established. It's like, wtf? Why would you let such an established base go? Except it's even worse in this Black Mirror episode because that scene IS the largest characterization scene of Kelly in the entire episode. And it's taken away within 10 minutes. Why in the fuck would you do that?

It's just straight up bad writing. AND it totally devalues key scenes and key themes.
---

itt my post is the best

ManSpread posted...

yeah, its not really a happy ending

Darmik posted...

So...it's not a Disney happy ending? That combined with the last shot being a robot swapping USB sticks on a server farm made me feel really conflicted if it actually was a happy ending. Which is just how it's gonna feel for that lady forever.

Instead of dealing with the hard consequence of death (which was Kelly's entire original premise and motivation based on her farewell speech to Yorkie), Kelly (or rather, the writers) put herself in San Junipero, which makes Yorkie happy, shows Kelly is happy, and they're literally on a happy paradise town forever and ever.

If it were the way the writing was heading towards, you would've had Yorkie still be happy on the island (despite not 100% happy because she didn't have Kelly), and you would've had Kelly have a peaceful passing.

There's absolutely no reason to have the first ending other than "well we set up these characters, and WELP i guess the audience just wants the absolute most best happiest ending ever, so let's disregard the most powerful scene and pretend like it didn't happen, let's ignore the complexities of morals and ideals, and just show that everyone got what they wanted". EXCEPT that it's not even true because Kelly quite literally said that's not what she wanted to do. It's so ignorant I can't even believe it.


Kelly = party chick
Yorkie = nerdy chick

just in case you forgot the names
---

itt my post is the best

Kelly had that really powerful speech about how she couldn't be in Junipero, because it would be a waste of her beloved 49 years with her husband/daughter, and how she respected that her husband didn't go there because the daughter never got the chance to. She parts goodbye, and says she's ready for the rest of it (presumably the rest of her disease to kill her and live out life).

Basically, she had an understanding that real life had to be respected even though she enjoyed the escape of San Junipero. And her basis for real life being respected was her history with her husband and daughter.

But no, in some fucking goodie two shoed happy everyone wins "lets ignore every important message just for that dumbass Disney fucking goddamn ending" BS, she shows up in San Junipero and totally negates everything she stood for. Negates the husband, negates the daughter, everything. So fucking dumb. What could've been my favorite episode ruined by the stupidest shit ever.
---

itt my post is the best

which one
---

itt my post is the best

MM is the greatest Zelda game, and one of the best video games ever.
---

itt my post is the best

Virus731 posted...

easy game

Virus731 posted...

how do I find water

lol
---

itt my post is the best

ClockworkHare posted...

At some point you have to remember that heroic characters like Wonder Woman are old as fuck as far as comics and actually contributed to establishing this trope in the first place.

Fair

Akagami_Shanks posted...

I kinda wished it ended with only a hint of Ares, and Steve Trevor dying anyway. That way WW would have her "Man is bad" narrative, "But maybe some are like him" sub thought, and WW2 would have the showdown with Ares in World War 2 (would have been better IMO with Ares being responsible for the most destructive war of all time)

Yeah that would be better.

ChromaticAngel posted...

. WW Jumps into a sniper tower so hard the tower explodes.

If you notice the sentence afterward, I literally pointed out how WW's powers were the exception. It's not fair to only use the first half of a point as a means to retort back. Also, tell me that WW using her superjump ability (which was already established that she could do) is the equivalent of Ares summoning metal flame swords in a all out multi-sword lunge in a giant ball of fire, followed by full on telekinesis, teleportation, and lightning summons.

ChromaticAngel posted...

Sure, but the actual ending was Ares does exist, but people are actually just like this anyway and Ares doesn't really have anything to do with it.

If that's the case then Ares didn't have to exist to drive that point home in a narrative sense.

slmcknett posted...

Except for where that wouldn't make sense since Zeus was 100% real, and Hippolyta and Antiope talked about Ares when Diana wasn't even around, because they knew he was coming back.

I think if Ares was just implied to be around instead of overtly around, it'd be better. I get that Ares has to play some role in the movie because he was built up in the beginning, but I personally think it'd be way cooler if Ares was this sort of omniscient presence rather than some actual dude.
---

itt my post is the best

I really hated it in the last 20 minutes though. They set it up perfectly where 'maybe Ares just doesn't exist and people are like this' as Diana is shocked and has to reevaluate her whole belief system. And the result of this huge reality check in the middle of chaos is grounds for some beefy character development. But NOPE! Fucking goofy ass British guy is actually Ares in a dumb plot twist and they have a superhuman battle. When the rest of the movie was grounded in reality.

Ok yes, WW blocking bullets and jumping and super strength are obviously not realistic, but her doing these minor things every once in a while in the movie is there to show how great she truly is. It's supposed to be jarring every time. But then you have a DBZ fight in the middle of nowhere and it's like, wtf?

Cliche "but humans are imperfect!" vs "but they are still worthy" contrast we see all the time.



I thought the movie was great and found really nothing wrong with it, up until Ares onwards. Ugh.
---

itt my post is the best

---

itt my post is the best

DekuPoe posted...

Master Kazuya posted...

JE19426 posted...

Because a blunt a day is far less damaging than 4-5 drinks.

I fucked up the dosage analogy but I think the message is clear enough.

Try a new dosage analogy.

Ok, ripping a phat ass bong on some medical headies vs taking in 4 drinks
---

itt my post is the best

JE19426 posted...

Because a blunt a day is far less damaging than 4-5 drinks.

I fucked up the dosage analogy but I think the message is clear enough.
---

itt my post is the best

What I mean is, if someone smokes a blunt a day or gets high in their spare time, people don't care as much. But alcohol, if someone likes to chill with 4-5 drinks, it's seen as less acceptable. Why is that?
---

itt my post is the best

emblem boy posted...

What are the stereotypical male profiles

-chill, laid back, easy going

That's probably the most common thing.

Returning_CEmen posted...

- Please message me with something more creative than "hey"

Ah, the classic.
---

itt my post is the best

Returning_CEmen posted...

- I am fluent in sarcasm

Valege posted...

I hate drama!

I can't believe I forgot these.
---

itt my post is the best

-i am an extroverted introvert
-i love to laugh, hanging out with friends, binge watching netflix, and going on spontaneous adventures
-i am shy at first but i open up once you get to know me
-i listen to pretty much any kind of music, or what my mood is
-im not really sure what to put here...
-im not looking for a hookup
-i like someone that can make me laugh
---

itt my post is the best

The part that looks weird to me is the amount of makeup she's wearing.
---

itt my post is the best

Idk, Laura is insanely hot, but Chun Li is Chun Li. So I picked Chun Li.
---

itt my post is the best

JE19426 posted...

Which job?

Queen

JE19426 posted...

That depends on what you mean by this.

How can it depend? If it depends, that means the answer is "yes". So, what exactly is she responsible for?
---

itt my post is the best

JE19426 posted...

Wrong.

Does she actively negotiate things internally and externally, have any sort of ideas or plans for the people, run any sort of political systems, etc? Would there be anything at stake if she took time off from the job?
---

itt my post is the best

If I ever meet a genie, if I make a deal with the Devil, if I somehow acquire enough currency for that to work to my advantage, or if self-brainwashing and/or 100% complete reconstructive surgery exists (and somehow I can afford it). Other than that, I never will.
---

itt my post is the best

80/80

I don't get it. She's nothing more than a rich old lady now, what's the point.
---

itt my post is the best

hypersonic2000 posted...

You can't even get Pacifist unless you complete Neutral, IIRC.

You're right, though I meant "neutral" in the poll options as "I played it without trying to get some kind of ending".

For example, my first playthrough was with the intent of getting the pacifist ending. I didn't stumble upon it as a surprise, I went straight for it. If that makes sense.
---

itt my post is the best

bp
---

itt my post is the best

Additional question: If you didn't do all three (or didn't do pacifist + genocide), why didn't you see the other endings?





I did pacifist and genocide. I knew beforehand that every enemy could be spared (which I wish I hadn't known in retrospect), and I loved the game so much I just had to see the other ending. And the game called me out on it brilliantly. In a way, I wish I hadn't done genocide, because it's pretty jarring comparatively and ruins the feelings of pacifist a little, but I know I'd be too curious to not do it.
---

itt my post is the best

I forgot about Tony Stark talking to Peter Parker for the first time.
---

itt my post is the best

Not a movie as a whole, but just a particular scene. It could be a scene from a bad movie too.

My favorite is probably when Xavier is trying to teach Magneto how to use his powers and ends up feeling all of his emotions as a result and just bawls.

Runner ups:

-Stark talking to Loki in his house
-Hammer lift scene
-Strange vs Dormammu
-Peter Parker stopping the train
-Quicksilver scene in DofP
- Logan killing Phoenix in Xmen 3
-Cap 2 elevator scene
-Stark in the final battle of Civil War saying "he killed my mom"
---

itt my post is the best

dafuq is this topic. Wow in what context? I've thought wow both in good and bad ways lol
---

itt my post is the best

EvalAngell posted...

They do this all the time in Atlantic City bro. They don't always run the deck until it's done. They'll take a break in between hands to wash and reshuffle. And yes they all use the automated shuffler. Haven't seen a dealer shuffle by hand in forever.

Well I guess I apologize because I didn't know they actually did that. But that's really stupid. My guess is because they are suspicious of counters.

Also, by automated shuffler, I don't mean electronic. There are shufflers where they mix the discard and active decks and constantly shuffle both, and those are bad because there's no discard pile which also goes against counting. But electronic shufflers that simply shuffle the deck are fine.

Mohegan has hand shuffling.
---

itt my post is the best

EvalAngell posted...

that's why i said "in the long run..."

There's a reason the dealer washes the deck when the table is running hot.

Uh, what the fuck? They only shuffle the cards at the end of the shoe (unless it's one of those continuous electronic shufflers which you should never ever play). If the table is "running hot", they keep it going. That would be utterly stupid if they reshuffled just because people got good hands, and it's honestly against regulation for a dealer to intervene like that.

Blackjack isn't a team game. It's literally, you, the cards the dealer is showing (not the dealer themselves because they have absolutely no decision making process or influence on the game), and the remainder of the deck.

There's no way you "all win in the long run". Two people playing BJ together doesn't increase their chances of them BOTH winning. Or three. Or four. So on. The house has the same theoretical edge against every single player.
---

itt my post is the best

EvalAngell posted...

You may get lucky but you've fucked up the shoe for the rest of the players.

This is literally the exact sort of sensationalist BS I was referring to, lol. Didn't take long.

You can't fuck up a shoe for the rest of the players by making an incorrect move. And playing optimal strategy is STILL house edge by the way.

The only way you can fuck up a shoe is if you reach over the table and physically grab the deck of cards and throw them around. And if you did that, you'd get kicked out of the casino for good.
---

itt my post is the best

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

It's called gamblers fallacy for a reason.

Yeah I know, and if people want to be stupid on their own, I'm fine with it. It's when people are trying to drag me into their shit and convince me of things that are simply not true that it gets annoying. And worst of all, get mad at me because of their bad RNG.
---

itt my post is the best