Lurker > NeoShadowhen

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

Most people know who Ed Sheeran is. It is only natural Ed Sheeran would get more screen time.

Had no idea who he was before this whole kerfuffle started

nayr626 posted...

Slip-N-Slide posted...

Did you play 2? If so it's just more of the same so if you liked that you will, if not you won't.

I've never played any of them.

It's basically a sandbox game?

Yeah it's just a giant sandbox fuck around game. Huge map, tons of vehicles and weapons, etc. It's a blast if you enjoy that sort of thing but mind numbingly boring if you don't.

Edit: the game does have some framerate issues on console though. Iirc it can dip into the low 20's with a lot of explosions and stuff.

Coolppl Owns posted...

you've been making these topics for a few years now brah

when will you learn

When I am dateable by someone else

zima

Zima is back for a limited time. It's basically alcoholic Sprite.

Wow, wtf I lived there for a time. I recognize all the places in the photos.

Man, she really liked taking nude pictures of herself.

Persona 5, literally right in the beginning of the game before you even start playing lol

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html

The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.

The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minorities to university campuses.

Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.

The project is another sign that the civil rights division is taking on a conservative tilt under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.

Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan and George Bush administrations who is now the president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, called the project a “welcome” and “long overdue” development as the United States becomes increasingly multiracial.

“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.

But Kristen Clarke, the president of the liberal Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the affirmative action project as “misaligned with the division’s longstanding priorities.” She noted that the civil rights division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups,” performing work that often no one else has the resources or expertise to do.

“This is deeply disturbing,” she said. “It would be a dog whistle that could invite a lot of chaos and unnecessarily create hysteria among colleges and universities who may fear that the government may come down on them for their efforts to maintain diversity on their campuses.”

The Justice Department declined to provide more details about its plans or to make the acting head of the civil rights division, John Gore, available for an interview.

“The Department of Justice does not discuss personnel matters, so we’ll decline comment,” said Devin O’Malley, a department spokesman.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while

SSJ-RingoStarr posted...

Nobody wants that.

People only have a problem with those who can't pass as the opposite gender.

What about cis people that can't do that? I am more of a woman right now than some of the women I deal with at work. What will be the passing threshold and how will we enforce it without gross violations of privacy?

-Gavirulax- posted...

...people thought Crash Trilogy would fail? lol?

I love the game (except the load times, they are rubbish).

I would love for Nintendo to do something like that with say SM64 (not the DS version) and SM Sunshine (or hell, the DKC trilogy).

A lot of people were convinced people only liked Crash because of nostalgia and the games suck now.

Lost in Blue

The series seems dead.

Vampire The Masquerade. Bloodlines is considered an all around fantastic game, I don't know why someone hasn't come up with a new story within that universe using the same framework and updated graphics.

NeoShadowhen posted...

Pogo_Marimo posted...

NeoShadowhen posted...

It has nothing to do with mental illness. It has been deemed that the appropriate medical response involves reliance on hormones and surgery. The military isn't going to allow people that require consistent access to anything for their health maintenance or may result in long recovery times after procedures.

They won't let you in if you have diabetes.

What would be your response if they they said trans people are allowed, but they can't undergo surgery or receive hormones while they are serving?

That's reasonable.

I suppose I'll run with the diabetes thing a bit further. If a person trying to enlist had diabetes, but wouldn't be physically effected by not receiving insulin and their condition wasn't going to result in requiring procedures and they could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made.

If a person who was trans indicated that they didn't require hormones and wouldn't require surgery and could otherwise pass the physical and mental requirements, surely an exception could be made.

But that shoots a huge hole in the argument that hormone therapy and surgery are necessary treatments. I don't think a lot of people would stand for that precedent being made, and further, they probably anticipate that soon down the road they will get stuck in a legal challenge about how they need to provide this necessary treatment to people they let in. They're probably trying to avoid that.

It does no such thing. Whether to partake in hormone therapy or surgery is the choice of the person in question and may be dependant on whether the person suffers from gender dysphoria that could be treated by those medical options. It's like saying the existence of people with severe anxiety who don't need or benefit from anti-anxiety meds invalidates the need for others to need anti-anxiety meds.

NeoShadowhen posted...

It has nothing to do with mental illness. It has been deemed that the appropriate medical response involves reliance on hormones and surgery. The military isn't going to allow people that require consistent access to anything for their health maintenance or may result in long recovery times after procedures.

They won't let you in if you have diabetes.

What would be your response if they they said trans people are allowed, but they can't undergo surgery or receive hormones while they are serving?

That's reasonable.