Lurker > Unbridled9

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This the bill you guys are talking about?

A bill to be entitled 'An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S.; requiring district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law for notifying a students parent of specified information; requiring such procedures to reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children in a specified manner; prohibiting the procedures from prohibiting a parent from accessing certain records; providing construction; prohibiting a school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that require school district personnel to withhold from a parent specified information or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information; providing an exception; prohibiting school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting a students mental, emotional, or physical well-being; prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner; authorizing a parent to bring an action against a school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school district procedure or practice violates certain provisions of law; providing for the additional award of injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable attorney fees and court costs to certain parents; requiring certain training developed or provided by a school district to adhere to standards established by the Department of Education; requiring the department to review and update, as necessary, specified materials by a certain date; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Paragraph (c) is added to subsection (8) of section 1001.42, Florida Statutes, to read: 1001.42 Powers and duties of district school board.The district school board, acting as a board, shall exercise all powers and perform all duties listed below:

(8) STUDENT WELFARE.

(c)1. In accordance with the rights of parents enumerated in ss. 1002.20 and 1014.04, adopt procedures for notifying a students parent if there is a change in the students services or monitoring related to the students mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being and the schools ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the student. The procedures must reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children by requiring school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to seek permission to discuss or facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent. The procedures must comply with s. 1002.22(2) and may not prohibit a parent from accessing any of his or her minor childs education records created, maintained, or used by the school district. This paragraph does not limit or alter any obligation of school district personnel to report suspected abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in s. 39.01.

2. A school district may not adopt procedures or student support forms that require school district personnel to withhold from a parent information about his or her students mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, or a change in related services or monitoring, or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information, unless a reasonably prudent person would believe that such disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in s. 39.01. School district personnel may not discourage or prohibit parental notification of and involvement in critical decisions affecting a students mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being.

3. A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.

4. A parent of a student may bring an action against a school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school district procedure or practice violates this paragraph and seek injunctive relief. A court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief.

5. Student support services training developed or provided by a school district to school district personnel must adhere to student services guidelines, standards, and frameworks established by the Department of Education.

Section 2. By June 30, 2023, the Department of Education shall review and update, as necessary, school counseling frameworks and standards; educator practices and professional conduct principles; and any other student services personnel guidelines, standards, or frameworks in accordance with the requirements of this act.

Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2022.

It was so annoying adjusting the formatting for this to a forum-friendly version. I get why they number each line, but I wish they had a version of it in a 'normal' format.

HornedLion posted...

This one I dont understand.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/6/2/AAckHXAADDq2.jpg

Can someone explain?

I don't understand it either as almost everyone is condemning Russia in one way or another. So I can't see why someone outside of Russia, regardless of their political wing, would make this.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Just curious, which example do you think resulted in more abortions? I know we disagree but I am still interested in the conversation.

I personally feel that both would have somewhat similar rates, although I assume the one-child policy would likely increase abortion rates.

Unquestionably the single-child policy. Not only would any woman who got pregnant after having her first child effectively be pressured into, if not outright forced to, have an abortion but the culture highly valued male heirs since they could 'continue the bloodline'. So if you/your wife got pregnant and it was a little girl in there... There's a reason there's more men than women in China.

Conversely in Arabia at that time women had very few rights and were often treated as being subservient to men with a religion that was outright hostile to the notion. If a wife got pregnant then got an abortion she'd probably have been severely punished if not outright killed and even simply miscarrying the baby (naturally or not) could result in public shaming.

I don't know what the views of the various NA tribes were on abortion, especially since there were a multitude of them so trying to condense them down into a single culture would be hilariously short-sighted, but they were not technologically advanced (especially in areas of medicine) and had small, tribal, populations. I would expect that every child would have been considered extremely precious and intentional abortion, if it happened, was probably extremely risky at best. Especially since I wouldn't be shocked if every child was considered precious due to small population sizes.

You can't go around and assume every culture had the same views and everything. Cause that's not how it was. Various religious, societal, population, technological, and resource-al? factors existed that would change how every culture would perceive it and there would be a lot of women who would be shunned into fear.

For every Rome (where we know there were a lot of contracepts used, we've found 'baby dumps', and I know of no taboos) there is a One-Child Policy China. It's a spectrum. I suspect that, in the future, there will be a culture that will see an abortion as being no worse than turning a computer off and on again or even possibly encouraging an abortion if the child lacks certain genetic traits.

ReturnOfFa posted...

You're suggesting that the state's regulation of abortion, back into ancient times, had an effect on the amount of abortions that occurred in said state. I'm suggesting it didn't, or if I am to temper my argument somewhat, its effect was minute.

I also have a great interest in history and read it daily. If abortions didn't happen in states where it was illegal, why does it happen so much in the Bible in states where it was illegal?

I dunno, but that's not really what I care about. What I care about is you effectively saying abortion happened as much and whatnot in China under the one-child policy as it did during the middle-ages Arabic countries or the native American cultures around the same time.

Abortion is medical care, as is health care related to preventing maternal mortality in general, as I would have thought my earlier posts in this topic would have demonstrated.

Barring situations where there's legitimate health concerns, I don't see it as medical care. Even if I did I would want things in place to ensure it doesn't become a safety hammock.

If you're trying to argue against abortion, you're failing. All you're doing is further illustrating the point that poc deserve MORE access to health care, not less.

It seems to me that post is just highlighting negative aspects of pregnancy and then using that as justification for a procedure simply because there are negative aspects. Like saying that, since there's a risk of crashing and car exhaust can cause health problems, we should all give up cars.

Edit: Also, let's be honest here. No one here's going to be moved from their position. I don't believe abortion should be permitted except in instances where there are serious medical issues (such as situations where a mothers life is at risk) as I value the unborn while you are not going to be moved from your pro-abortion stance. My only real reason for sticking around ATM is because Fa said something insanely stupid about abortion rates that I, as someone who enjoys studying history, find insane and rewriting history to fit their own world view. We're not going to convince one another to change what we both see as a key moral foundation to our world views.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Exact same could be implied in states that disallow the abortion of ectopic pregnancies, where they are literally allowing the death of the woman, as opposed to the removal of a fetus that will never come to term.

So saying they should focus on reducing the number of deaths from childbirth instead of advocating for abortion is genocide? That's... Illogical.

If a mother dies in childbirth but still manages to deliver the child that's a neutral gain. If a mother dies but this is her second child the population has increased by a net of 1. An abortion would keep the net population the same. Not to mention it's an INSANELY huge leap to go from 'abortion shouldn't be allowed' to 'they're letting women die intentionally'.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Demanding that all people have access to medical care is not race-based genocide. What a stupid argument.

I don't recall saying I thought they shouldn't have access to medical care. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say the difference happens because they don't have equal access. A lot of minority groups in general live in smaller income brackets meaning less access to health care in general and likely living in areas with overworked and underfunded hospitals. Not to mention other possible health complications that might arise from living in less well-off neighborhoods. Though I do think it's very suspicious still that the hispanic demographic seems relatively similar but the black demographic is vastly higher. That tells me there's something else going on with the numbers being reported and they're probably doing something to twist them for a narrative (especially since they didn't list other minority groups).

HornedLion posted...

Whats crazy is how they[conservatives] always find a reason to call a democrat president the antichrist.

But when it comes to Trump theyre like:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/3/2/AAckHXAADDtg.jpg

Everyone finds a reason to call the people they disagree with evil but overlooks/excuses the bad things done by people they agree with.

'He committed war crimes!'

'It wasn't his fault that bomb went off in a hospital. He had bad information.'

Honestly I kind of feel like a 50/50 split is natural either. I mean, fishing has no gender lock in the slightest or anything, yet far more men than women do it. There's a lot of things which, likewise, have no gender gate yet one gender distinctly likes more than the other. And that's okay. I don't think there will ever be a 50/50 split in shooters for example. Though I do agree people should try to be looking to get more women into gaming (and I don't mean mobile gaming) on the whole.

I'm curious. What's the gender ratio on Pokemon, if that can even be found? That seems like something that could appeal to the more traditional female audience.

pedro45 posted...

Have you seen mortality rates amongst black women during pregnancy?
Don't get me wrong, the USA is a first world country, but there are a ton of stats that aren't a pretty picture for it. If you're a minority in America, it starts to get less appealing.
America isn't the worst, but there's a long way to go before it is as great as some people wanna paint it.

I'll be honest here. Someone claiming that black women are more likely to die than white women in childbirth, and therefor we should allow abortions especially for minority women, sounds a lot like someone trying to practice a subtle version of genocide against black people. Even if the statistic is true (something seems fishy about the claim at least. The article I found showed that hispanic women, while higher than white, weren't, like, absurdly so... But then Eclampsia from black women suddenly surpassing all of white women and almost all of hispanic women? And were's other minority groups like asians? It feels like it was made to drive a narrative.) it seems more prudent to try and address the cause of why these women are dying in childbirth than to claim that the 'solution' is abortions. I say 'solution' because it's impossible to predict if a pregnancy would lead to birth complications/death except in very specific cases and, even then, it won't actually affect the rate of women dying in childbirth, just the number who actually have it. In other words, black women would still be dying at something like 3+ times more often than white women, they'd just have fewer women reaching that point. Not to mention blacks are a minority and encouraging a minority to get abortions because it's dangerous, especially with a majority not receiving the same message/attempt at fear, seems like it would lead to a reduction in the percentage in the minority group.

I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying it sounds fishy, a bit cherry-picked, and like it was designed to fit a specific narrative with possible ethnic genocide being said narrative. It's not like it would be the first time abortions been used to attempt this (though it's usually forced).

And yes. I do DEFINATELY agree there's a lot of things in the U.S. that need improvement. Universal healthcare, seeing stuff like food and shelter as basic human rights, workers rights, addressing climate change, etc. It's why I shifted away from the right to become an independent. America has a lot of issues that need addressing. However the right seems content to stick it's head in the sand and/or go 'you're on your own bucko cause we don't want big government' while also getting their fingers involved in peoples personal lives (like homosexuality and abortion), while the left seems utterly obsessed with gender identity, racial issues, and the like and offers unrealistic solutions (how the heck am I supposed to afford a $40,000+ brand new electric car if I can BARELY afford an old used car? Not to mention other issues with electric cars especially for long-distance travel.). So I don't belong on the right because I advocate for policies/things they disagree with and don't believe the government should be dabbling in peoples personal lives, especially when it refuses to do things that could actually help people by doing that. I don't belong on the left though since I disagree with a lot of their current fascinations and feel their solutions are unrealistic at best. Hence, I am an independent.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

mobile games don't make you a gamer

I disagree. As much as it pains me. Back in the day a lot of games on the Atari/NES were of far lower quality in everything (including gameplay) and no one would claim that you weren't a gamer for playing those. However, I do think it's fair to criticize the mindset behind it. Namely people playing it during their commute/break for idle entertainment instead of a devoted effort to enjoy the game.

pedro45 posted...

Especially minorities. The US is like a third world country in everything but like military spending.

Yea.... No. Not in the slightest. It may not be the best but 'third world'... It's like saying you're eating literal trash because you are eating out at a steak house instead of getting some fancy diner food that costs 200+ dollars an entry or something. It may not be 'the best', but to think it's trash/third world is insanely stupid.

wpot posted...

There's been a lot of focus on characters, and I think that end of the equation is largely on the way to being solved (albeit moreso in movies than in games): you see a fair amount of character variety nowadays. (Even, at times, when it doesn't make sense for the setting of the movie, which annoys me a bit)

Like you say, though, the more interesting question is whether there is a AAA type of game that should exist to appeal to traditional female audiences. Maybe, maybe not. I would personally guess that a MMO Farmville-type game (cooperative gathering/finding/building) might be what's missing, if anything. Add in some Dragon Quest-like sidequests and minigames, maybe. I know a few women something like that might appeal to. Could/should that be AAA? I dunno.

I don't think that's realistically feasible as an MMO. MMO's require a high degree of co-operation between players to complete a task. I'm not saying everything needs to be a raid fight and/or dungeons are an absolute 'must', but I can't see how that would be able to break into the MMO market, let alone the AAA category. Animal Crossing is probably the closest we'll realistically get toward something like that as an AAA game. While something like Farmville can rake in a lot of cash it's just not in the same category.

I suspect it will be more character/aesthetic design as opposed to game design, but even if a game like that for the female audience could be designed there'd be a lot of difficulty convincing the female demographic to play. However, I suspect it won't be an issue as modern generations are increasingly involved in this sort of thing. IIRC quite a few games have about a 33% female player-base. Sure, that's far from 'ideal', but it's a big step forwards. In a generation or two it will probably be near 50/50 regardless of what gets put out.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Abortion rates have varied little in modern culture regardless of their legal status. All of your information on high birth rates doesn't mitigate abortions happening in ancient cultures.

*facepalm*

So, because ONE culture had (according to you) a consistent abortion rate despite it's legal status (which I highly doubt, but whatever), you now believe that ALL cultures, across ALL of history, had similar rates of abortion?

I'd call that a leap in logic, but if I did you'd be able to leap to Pluto.

Edit: This isn't even about pro-choice vs. pro-life at this point. It's about dealing with this redonkulous claim that makes sense only in a deluded mind.

adjl posted...

Not really. You get the occasional preachy vegan that insists that every non-vegan in the world is evil, but the vast majority treat it no differently from any other dietary choice.

Even with the preachy ones, the issue is less than they're trying to push an unreasonable viewpoint and more that they're trying to preach a viewpoint nobody can actually defeat. It's objectively true that veganism causes less suffering than omnivory, no matter how hard omnivores try to be responsible consumers and reduce the suffering they cause. Nobody can actually argue that point. They can only admit that they don't care about it, and being backed into a corner like that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

It's not undefeatable. Watch. 'I don't care'.

There is a false equivalency here. Namely that the suffering of an animal is inherently equal to the suffering of a human. While it's true most people want animals treated at least somewhat humanely, the fact is we're discussing non-sentient beings reared specifically for food in a world in which omnivores and carnivores are not exactly 'rare' (and almost entirely more painful in their kills than humans). These animals are not even considered to be companions to humans. So while I can understand someone being outraged at the slaughter of, say, a dog because dogs are considered to be human pets which people often form close bonds to, occasionally reaching the same level as a bond with a human, this doesn't hold true for a cow or chicken.

Additionally a lot of the 'preachy ones' frequently intend to force their own, personal, choice upon others without even giving them the option to dissent. I.E. they want all meat banned meaning you would have no choice but to go vegan or starve. Granted this is a minority of a minority, but it's also an EXTREMELY VOCAL minority of said minority. That other vegans only rarely, if ever, condemn them makes it worse. At least atheists tend to advocate for a personal choice and condemn the people who actively try to make atheism absolute.

wpot posted...

Certainly agreed. All I was trying to say at the beginning was that some gender-linked preferences are statistically natural.

Beyond that, could the industry make games more appealing to (traditional) girls? Yes, as you say there is definitely work that could be done there given the history. The most natural way to address that would be to get some young women designing games that would truly appeal to themselves (which is how the industry started with male programmers) buut...yeah, that's not where the industry is right now. And marketing/expectations would still be issues.

I'll agree that the current trend of simply slapping female leads on top of traditionally male-developed genres (be in the movies or games) has probably reached the end of it's usefulness. There was a good reason to make the change and I haven't been sad to see it, but a deeper rethinking is needed and everyone is struggling with that.

The main issue with that is that a lot of the things which appeal to 'traditional girls' also don't typically make for good game design. For example, a lot of women enjoy horses. While it can make for a cheap 3DS/mobile game it just lacks the strength and depth to develop a fully fleshed out AAA game. While there's certainly ways to make more AAA games appealing to 'traditional girls' by, say, adding in characters who are more 'traditionally feminine' (can we just assume I'm using traditionally from now on in this post?), that's still a tall order and comes with it's own sets of challenges. For example, in Chrono Trigger there's three female characters in the party. One of which is a cavewoman who is 'sexy' but, aside from her sex appeal, is not feminine in any way (relying immensely on physical might and various primative things). The second is a girl who is a gadgeteer inventor which, while being a good character and so-forth, doesn't conform to feminine values. Only one of them actually conforms to the traditional norms and even then she straddles the line at times. This isn't to say it can't be done by any means. For example, Yuna is a distinctly feminine girl and is considered great as is Aerith. This isn't always feasible though. Especially in games with smaller casts. As much as I like Monica Raybrandt I can't deny for a second she's not a feminine girl or, at least, it's subdued in comparison to her other aspects such as being a warrior and so-forth. This is ignoring that such values differ across cultures in at least some aspects. What might be considered feminine in Japan isn't the same in a western culture being the obvious example.

I'm not against it in any way. I'm just not sure how it should be done, especially without compromising game integrity in at least some instances. I am aware not every game needs to conform to this either. Just... I'd like some more concrete thoughts on this before I decide if I support it or not I guess.

ReturnOfFa posted...

oh right, I forgot that everyone followed the law in all of those ancient cultures. my mistake!!!

So your counter, to my statement that people have not always followed the same laws and traditions across a multitude of time periods and cultures, each with their own societal norms, religious beliefs, societal structures, and so-forth, is to simply say people didn't always follow the law?

That's not a counter or even an argument. It's a blind assertion relying on the fact that it's impossible to disprove a negative (especially when it comes to ancient history). You may as well claim that the ancient Mayans played D&D and acted out 'The Real Housewives of Machu Picchu' since you can't prove they didn't have those sorts of ideas.

For example, in a lot of feudal societies, the infant mortality rate was high since, well, feudal. If you wanted your bloodline preserved you usually needed to have a multitude of children. Not only that but every child you had meant more help with things like farming and what-not regardless of their gender. In the noble families each child you had meant more opportunities for political alliances, fall-backs for maintaining titles, and so-forth. There's a reason a lot of noble families had 3-5 children if not more. Combined with extremely strict catholic moral taboos against that sort of thing and it's crazy to think that they'd have the same view of it as we do today or even the same views as the exact same society just in the 1800's or something. Especially since a society in a place where food was plentiful would have an entirely different view on children than a place where food was scarce. Or a place that frequently was involved in wars was from a place that was relatively peaceful. Nevermind the difference between a European culture, a culture in the African Congo, Central America, Mongolia, and India in the exact same time period.

So no. Saying 'they didn't always follow the rules' is not an argument here.

ReturnOfFa posted...

abortion happened on equivalent levels in all cultures regardless of whether or not it was considered morally permissible

Yea... Either you're not explaining that well or I'm calling a complete and total BS on that. There's no way it happened the same in Medieval Europe, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, the various American tribes, China, and so-forth. If you seriously think that a society that would have considered abortion a taboo worthy of going to hell over would have women doing it just as much as one which held no such taboo... I don't know what to say to you. Where are you even getting that notion from?

I mean, Gamefaqs as a whole is dying. There just isn't much of a need for it in general now-a-days. Most of the people here are old-timers who came in and just haven't left yet for one reason or another. So every time someone leaves for whatever reason it's a hit the site can't recover from. I'm only tenuously on Gamefaqs myself now-a-days after several extremely bad interactions with various boards (POTD not being one of them) and am basically only still around because of a small D&D forum. Once that ends, I'm likely leaving and gone for good.

Let's be fair... 'Nice Guys' are, indeed, losers. Vegan's are way too often annoying to the point of being losers as well.

HEY! Human sacrifice isn't evil! How else are we supposed to forstall the endtimes if our gods don't have their daily diet of blood?

Plus there have seriously been people advocating for utilizing humans as part of the food process. That one I'm being serious about. 'Human composting' being the most common one, but I have definitely heard at least one person argue humans should go Soylant Green/Glagar's Human Rinds on everybody cause 'it's just meat' and 'we'll need it to help with future food shortages'. Suffice to say I think a LOT of people would have problems with that (especially religious people). But yea, while tradition and the respect of it has it's place in society, especially as part of a population's cultural identity, just because something happened in the past and was considered 'okay' at least for a while does not mean it IS right. Especially since you're effectively cherry-picking the cultures in which abortion was considered 'okay' and ignoring the ones that didn't. Plus said cultures where it was also usually had women being far less equal to men than the situation today. If we were to say that abortion is okay because of them, then why should we also reject their notions of gender equality?

Gaawa_chan posted...

Like... would Superman be an isekai by these standards?

No.

The primary defining aspect of an isekai is that a person from our world is dropped off into another world to try and survive. That they usually grow powerful and/or have some form of massive advantage is typical but not required (EX: Grimgar). While said person may be re-incarnated into that world, they still typically have memories or something similar of our 'real' world.

Superman is from our universe. He travels to our world and has no memories of his homeworld. The focus of his stories tends to be on things like morality and, well, truth, justice, and the american way along with themes of what it's like to be an alien living in a world not your own and all the good/bad it can bring. There's a lot of other things involved, but none of them are considered 'core' to what isekai's tend to do by a longshot. Superman is, ultimately, about trying to do the right thing especially when your power is so excessive that you could easily become an absolute dictator. That's almost exactly the opposite of what Isekai's tend to do (in which the protagonist uses their power to fix all the worlds problems if not outright become dictator of the world).

As someone pointed out to me a while back, Superman could easily fix all the worlds problems. The entire JLA even more so. All diseases, gone. Crime, eliminated. Pollution, removed. Even death itself potentially done away with if not stymied. However, doing so would remove almost all the free will humanity has. They would be unable to do 'wrong' with the term 'wrong' being defined by whichever being was on top (presumably Superman). This might even be made worse because there would be effectively nations ruled over by whichever powerful person could hold sway with the populations forced to follow along because they have no choice but to do so or else fight against someone they have no chance of resisting. So while the superheroes can team up to protect the world from outside harm and extreme threats and provide hope and such, at the core of being a superhero is protecting mans free will. Which means things like crime exist. The moment they decide to ignore that they stop being heroes and become the very villains they swore to defeat.

So no, Superman is not an Isekai. The core of their stories along with the majority of superficial trappings are different. You might argue WW is a reverse isekai, but even that's debatable at best.

I see a child as the ultimate expression of love. Two bodies joined into one to make a new life full of possibilities and potential. I know this isn't true all the time by a long shot. While I do feel the option should be there I don't want it being used as a safety hammock/morning after pill escape type thing.

None. As much as I love stuff like Dark Cloud 2 and Breath of the Wild are great, perfect is not a good word.

wolfy42 posted...

Everywhere is Taco Bell confirmed.

This list checks out.

Toilet paper shortage has lead to the usage of three seashells in their place?

JixHedgehog posted...

* Everyone will be relying on how-to YouTube videos
* Most of the workforce will comprise of influencers
* Crypto paved the way to a single global currency while NFTs evolved into people selling 1ft pieces of their houses, land and spaces off the ground
* After the first 3 successful one way trips to Mars, Elon Musk is ready for a back and forth trip
* We'll have had a Hollywood celeb as President
* Pakistan and India will have had their war
* Most of the fast food chains will have merged
* No more entertainment hardware except for screens, everything else beams down from whatever the cloud and internet will be at the time
* Still no flying cars
* Nancy Pelosi is still alive

Regan doesn't count?

J_Dawg983 posted...

Probably similar to now with a bit more automation and a bit more cleaner energy sources

and the latest cod taking up a full tb of storage.

FIFA 2039 will still be the exact same game as FIFA 2019 with a different roster.

I will be immortal.

'Oh wow mom. Was it really true? Back in your day did you really not know how destructive Twitter was? Everybody just had, like, unlimited access to it?'

*sob* 'We didn't know! We didn't realize the harm until it had already been done!'

'Whelp.' *picks up gun* 'Time to go hunt some radroaches.'

'Be careful to not let the cannibals get you! I'll be here... We couldn't have known...'

Wanded posted...

why did musk leave california if he isn't paying taxes

It being California is enough of a reason to want to leave it.

HornedLion posted...

A republican once told me they were visited by a friendly ghost. They described him as a white figure and somewhat see thru.

But he also told me he would be visited by dark apparitions. These black phantoms would invade his home, and in the morning hed notice valuables missing.

That's racist! White and latino phantoms are just as capable of invading someone's home and stealing valuables!

Lokarin posted...

Explain how dead people can access their bank

Ghost banks.

So long as I'm laughing and happy I'm satisfied.

We have it already. The Uwe Boll movies.

We got older.

She's gonna give you covid. Don't do it mate.

Apparently Putin is vowing to 'cleanse Russia of the scum and traitors'. While this could fit either of the narratives I suggested earlier I feel it more supports the latter since, as an ex-KGB agent, he should be more than aware that saying this would likely drive any actual 'traitors' underground. This is more of a fear-monger tactic which seems more in line with someone losing their sanity than what a cold and calculating leader would do.

My working theory is that Putin's mind didn't quite survive the quarantine intact and he might be also suffering some sort of illness that's putting a timer on his life. He's running out of time to achieve his goal of a 'reunited Russia' and wants to leave that as his legacy. That normal Russians don't seem to support it and the world turned against him should have clued him in that this wasn't exactly a smart idea, but he seems more determined and unhinged. I've heard some theories suggesting he has developed colen cancer. I think that's just wild speculation with little, if any, backing. However I know he's getting up there in years and he may be facing the stark reality that he simply doesn't have a lot of time left before the reaper comes for him. Hence his rash and poorly planned decisions.

Here's the issue. I don't believe Putin would do it normally. The fact is that, even if Russia decided it would nuke America, America would nuke Russia right back and Putin KNOWS this. It's a losing game of power. So I don't think he's threatening to actually DO it, especially since Ukraine doesn't have nukes (and that would turn the entire world against him overnight and cause pretty much an universal war from everyone who isn't North Korea and maybe China), at least NORMALLY. So I suspect one of two things is actually happening.

1) He's seeing how far he can push the 'nuke' card. If NATO caves to the threat he's proven it's an ineffective alliance and can, effectively, demand any nation in Europe concede to him because NATO can't save them and he doesn't have to worry about America, cause nuke. So Poland? Nuke card and he can take it. Scandinavia? Nukes and they have to either become vassals or outright be conquered. He can just keep playing the card over and over again until he reaches either France or England and, only then, does he have to actually 'worry'... And he's got China backing him with all their nukes so he feels confident still that America won't intervene. Plus he's also shown that China can, safely, take Taiwan, cause nukes, as well as basically any territory in Asia that's not Pakistan or India, cause nukes, and India's part of the BRICS trade thing so they probably don't have to worry anyways. Plus he may also be keeping an eye on his inner cabinet to see who would question or defy such an order so he can 'remove' them.

2) He's legitimately lost his sanity and has gone full Kim Jong Un if Un had any balls.

Did he have a spat with Seamus Aren?

Here's the question I have. Given their poor showing in Ukraine, if they DID launch a nuclear strike... Would it even work? Like, right now, I wouldn't be shocked if over half the nukes were operating on old 70's tech, wearing afros, and thought disco was still a thing and the other half was still reading up on the west's obsession with 'Reganomics'.

Notschmendrake posted...

I dont care so much how we get rid of it, just THAT we get rid of it.

Agreed. Though, honestly, the winter time worked better. Maybe it's so that it lines up better with timezones or something.

Lokarin posted...

wait, is it out?

I hope it comes to steam otherwise I'll just watch a let's play :/

No, but the demo is as well as pre-release review copies.

Judgmenl posted...

Company supports actually scamming customers (NFTs) so no. I will not buy anything from Square Enix ever again.
It looks very good. I have seen the demo gameplay, but it is locked to EGS.

Square is a company that went defunct in 2003.
Nobody knows what Final Fantasy is supposed to be.

I don't think that's true. I think that the employees and lower-downs know what it's supposed to be, but the higher-ups and ones in charge of making the decisions have no clue. Cause, like, the small things seem to have people who at least get it, but then they make bone-headed decisions regarding the major over-arching stuff (like giving XII TWO sequels! And the X sequel being churned out so quickly that they couldn't even give Lulu a proper pregnant model) that seemed to make it clear that the higher-ups have no clue.

Here's a question. What will happen when it turns on Belarus? I mean, if their goal is to restore the USSR it's gonna have to take it. At the same time they've basically been acting as Russia's puppet. So are they gonna, like, suddenly go 'we want to join Russia!'? Plus what about the soviet satellite nations? You know, the ones that weren't part of the USSR but were basically controlled by them? Especially since ones like Poland are now part of NATO and/or don't want to rejoin?

I agree that they should add a pause button for at least offline content. It REALLY sucks playing then having something pop up and either needing to find a safe place or risk death because you need to do stuff IRL. While I get that difficulty is important, there's a big difference between 'difficult' and 'inconvenient'.

Because whenever you do it to someone else, you're justified in doing it. They were being mean, a jerk, hateful, etc.

Whenever someone does it to you you were just being an innocent person not saying anything wrong and they were being mean, a jerk, hateful, etc.

Pretty simple system really. You can explain 95% of fights as someone thinking that they're justified in fighting because they think the other side is doing something wrong/bad.

Tasting is really freaky. Especially with how horrific switch cartridges taste.

For those who might suffer from this in the future; there's a series of simple exercises you can do that can help out IMMENSELY!

SeahorseCpt89 posted...

Im surprised Buchanan doesnt have more votes, hes at the top of every worst presidents list for being an incompetent ass. He stood by and did nothing as our country became more and more divided, southern states succeeded and a civil war was threatened by the end of his term.

Oh and he fully supported the Dredd Scott case, hoping he wouldnt have to tackle the slavery issue, but his stance on it only made things worse.

Trump and Reagon might be worse in some spots as they are terrible influences on todays politics, though (and the former did try to overthrow the government). But Buchanan should get a mention for being so terrible, he literally tore the country apart.

It's because a lot of people don't even know who he is. Yet they know who Reagan and Trump are and, basically, if you are on the left, you will almost certainly think one of these two is the worst regardless of any actual quality.

It's Buchanan and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot/not versed in history. It's basically thanks to him that the entire civil war happened and his general inactions and failures caused any chance of an early resolution to be dissolved. I don't think you can get much worse than 'caused an entire civil war through your own incompetence'

Any idea on how long it takes to go away? It sucks being bed-bound.