Lurker > darkknight109

Jen0125 posted...

I really enjoyed the remake

I didn't.

I was playing it at the same time as another Square remake that was released at roughly the same time - specifically, Trials of Mana, which was a remake of Seiken Densetsu 3 for the SNES. And despite the fact that Trials had a shoestring budget compared to FF7R, I felt it was the much better remake (and, honestly, the better game overall). Trials stayed true to its roots and basically faithfully translated the base game to 3D, while also adding a few new features that enhanced and expanded the game. It wasn't perfect and it had its flaws (especially the voice acting, which ranged from "just OK" to "atrocious"), but it did an excellent job of basically taking an old game and adapting it to modern gaming conventions.

FF7R more or less completely rewrote the plot of FF7 and committed the same sin that the Hobbit movies did 10 years ago by taking an old, perfectly paced story and stretching it out far, far too thin. All the new story parts that they added were boring, nonsensical, added nothing to the overarching plot and felt clumsily stitched on, never connecting back to anything. As an example, you spend an entire chapter turning off gigantic "sun lamps" on the Midgar plate in order to open some doors (which is a major "Wait, what the fuck?" moment in the plot, but let's ignore that for now). Tifa points out that they're creating great suffering for the people below (how, exactly, turning the lights off for a spell does that is never satisfactorily explained) while Barrett insists that it's for the greater good. I expected to see this plot point expounded on at some point, maybe during a future visit to the slums where you actually see or hear about the effects of what you did... but it never happens. Literally the entire episode is never referenced again after you finish that dungeon. The game wastes an hour of your time running this errand and delivers zero payoff for it.

And the game does this over and over. You meet this new biker SOLDIER and get in a fight with him, followed by a rematch a little while later... then he just disappears and never has any real influence on the plot. Don Corneo's bodyguard is given this tragic backstory that we have to waste time learning about, despite the fact that he's completely unimportant and the game never gives us any real reason to care about him. In FF7, the three ancillary members of AVALANCHE are basically just named NPC extras; FF7R has you spend hours with them, yet *still* never gets around to actually giving them decent characterization. I can literally sum up all three of them in one sentence each - Wedge is the overweight, "kind-hearted" goofball cat lover that is the butt of everyone's jokes; Biggs is the "cool guy" who helps out an orphanage in his spare time; Jessie is the former stage actress whose entire character arc is basically her wanting to furiously hump Cloud's face whenever he so much as breathes.

It's not all bad - the graphics are superb, the soundtrack is gorgeous, and the game has tremendous ambience, absolutely nailing the world of FF7. When the game stops fucking around and gets out of its own way, it actually gives a reasonably solid performance (though I felt the battle system was overdone and could have used some streamlining). If the game had cut out all the extraneous bullshit it felt like it had to tack on to pad out the runtime and had instead just followed the plot and pacing of the original FF7, I'd probably think a lot more favourably of it. As it is, I platinumed it, put it down, and have no desire to ever play it again.

My name is darkknight109, thank you for coming to my TED-talk.

Playing the original FF7 makes me upset at how much better they could have handled the remake.

Cacciato posted...

Hes not in timeout. Hes dead.

Oh, good! I only saw him suspended - glad they decided to finally drop the banhammer.

What got him in the end anyways?

Most of the X games are pleasantly challenging. They're not ridiculously hard, but they're not a cakewalk either.

Except X6. That game enjoys fucking you sideways.

USER INFO: SPARTAN-B312

New User
User Since: Feb 2022
Karma: 4
Active Posts: 5

I'm guessing this is Manchild's new account, since he's in timeout at the moment.

For Canadians, you can also donate to the Canadian Red Cross Ukraine Humanitarian Crisis Appeal. The government is matching all donations less than $100,000 from now until March 18.

https://donate.redcross.ca/page/100227/-/1

I miss the 90s internet where everything was run by hobbyists rather than big corporations.

adjl posted...

Using a phone or shouting is direct communication. You're not creating media for the purpose of socializing, which is what the term "social media" implies. By contrast, on a message board, you are creating written media (posts) for the sake of communicating socially. That's no different from sharing pictures on Facebook.

I think it depends.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, et al are non-subjective, by which I mean they don't have a pre-set topic to talk about. The idea is that you're meant to, well, socialize and I consider socializing distinct from (if related to) discussions. Socializing involves talking about yourself and other people; discussions are on a specific subject.

I personally don't consider GameFAQs to be social media, because the emphasis isn't on the users and their lives, it's about the topic of video games and the community that has spawned from them. Reddit, similarly, is typically less about the users and more about building a community focused on some hobby or other subject.

It's obviously open to a lot of interpretation, but for me I see a big difference between true "social media" in the vein of the companies I mentioned earlier versus sites like GF, Youtube, Reddit, and the like.

'bout fuckin' time. I have no idea why he wasn't booted sooner given the misinformation he spreads.

GF seems to have gotten better at cracking down on that in the past year or so, so I have no idea why he still had an account ("has", I guess, unless that suspension turns out to be a ban).

JixHedgehog posted...

Staging a non violent truck protest

They literally tried to set a building on fire and also attempted to ram RCMP officers.

Ottawa mayor has come out in favour of seizing all of the impounded trucks and selling them off to help pay for the costs to the city.

Which I 100% support. Hit these fuckers where it hurts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If covid kills, why did I and my friends just get a cold? How do you know it's not just the flu? How do you know that the gub'mint isn't lying about a normal cold to inject microchips? What are the ACTUAL deaths by covid, instead of deaths with? Why are the rules opening and closing all the time? If it's so bad, why doesn't the government act it?

Every single one of these has been explained on a level a child could understand. Here, I'll do it right now:
1) No one said COVID kills *everyone* - some people will survive. Honestly, most people will survive. But the problem is that even if it only kills only a few percentage points of those it infects, a few percentage points of the entire population is a really big number. If 1% of the US population died, that's 3.3 million people dead.
2) Because tests used to detect COVID-19 react to specific chemical elements of the virus to confirm it is, in fact, COVID-19 and not, say, influenza.
3) Because you can watch a living creature get microchipped by going down to the vet's office and watching them put a microchip in a dog. You'll notice that the needle used for it is fucking huge and that's just for a chip with no internal power source that has a single function (to return data when scanned). In order for a chip to be useful for tracking, it would have to be even larger than those; you're definitely not fitting it in a vaccine syringe. More to the point, if the government wanted to track you, it'd be far easier to just hack the phone you're very likely already carrying.
4) Because the rules are created by politicians, not doctors, and politicians weigh a lot more factors than just medical science, for good or for ill.
5) The world was shut down for the better part of two years, which is completely unprecedented - is that not "acting like it"?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yeah, and it's on you to help deal with their trust as you want them to take the vaccine, they're happy with their answer and staying wrong.

Honestly? No, at this point, it's not on me anymore. Better men and women than me, who have forgotten far more about medical science than I will ever know, have already made those efforts and still idiots abound.

We have people who have explained the vaccine and the process behind it at every level of complexity, from the facile to the in-depth. We have mountains of data reaching inescapable conclusions. At this point, if you don't accept that vaccines are safe it is because you do not wish to accept it and I'm not going to waste my time fruitlessly trying to convince you otherwise.

I am fully vaccinated and boosted and my life has mostly returned to normal (and what parts haven't, like the requirement to wear masks indoors, are things I can live with). I live in an area where over 90% of the populace is vaccinated and our health care system is no longer in crisis mode. You want to play Russian Roulette with the most deadly disease the world has seen in the last 100 years? I won't stand in your way. And about the only people I will feel sorry for if life decides to call you on your poor decision making is the health care professionals who have to waste time and resources trying to save you from your own idiocy and any family you left behind who miraculously didn't inherit your terminal stupidity.

(in case it wasn't clear, the preceding paragraph is using the hypothetical "you", not referring to you specifically).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Conspiracy theories arise from a lack of knowledge, it's answer seeking behaviour.

No, conspiracy theories come from emotional disturbance. This is why you can have an event like Sandy Hook, which is conceptually not difficult at all to understand (psychopath shoots up a school) but which is also highly emotive and wind up with a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories don't tend to form around highly technical topics (which would be the case if they legitimately came from lack of knowledge and answer-seeking), they form around highly emotional topics.

Hence why I say that more data, more explaining, and more scholarly debate won't resolve anything, nor convince any conspiracy theorists to abandon their line of thinking.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

People can and have changed their political and religious affiliations upon being given good data by trustworthy people. Problem is who is trustworthy to you is not the same people who are trustworthy to them.

Again, if people don't trust actual, named scientists whose credentials are well known, they're not going to trust me, an anonymous poster on the internet.

Hence my assertion that debating settled science is a waste of time.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

He brings people in and offers up questions for them to expand on what they think, he makes himself vulnerable to their point of view, so meaningful discussion can happen. Being an influence on many, he is an ideal candidate to sway.

I think you vastly overestimate Joe Rogan's willingness to accept change, as well as his intent in bringing the people he does onto his show.

Rogan was a conspiracy theorist 30 years ago, which is around the time I first noticed him as a comedian. Three decades on, not much has changed - what makes you think he's suddenly open to changing his mind now?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not settled for them. You can tell a colour blind person something is blue and science says it's settled, but if they just see grey, they still think it's grey until you show them what they're unable to see.

It is settled for them - they may or may not accept it, but when science is settled, it is settled for all.

Your analogy to the blind man is actually apropos, though maybe not for the reason you might think. A blind man lacks the capability to see colour. If I tell him something is blue and he doesn't believe me, I can redouble my efforts. I can get a million people to tell him its blue, show him wavelength measurements of blue light, explain why the light diffracting off this object is blue... but if he ultimately chooses not to believe the object is blue in the face of all that evidence, there's nothing I can do to convince him otherwise, because he lacks the capacity to see the colour for himself.

Our COVID situation is much the same, except instead of blind men incapable of seeing colour, we have dumb people incapable of understanding science.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The evidence isn't credible to them.

And?

They're not in a position to decide whether evidence is scientifically credible or not. Just because they don't believe it doesn't mean it's not credible evidence.

Again, if someone is so detached from reality that they believe one of these conspiracy theories, it's pointless to try and convince them otherwise with scholarly debate, because it won't work - they're living in a fact-free world at that point and simply dismissing legitimate scientific evidence as "not credible".

Hence my point that such exercises are a waste of time.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You have to show them that is reality. Your eyes are covered in capillaries but you feel you can see clearly, everything goes through a lens of people's feelings on things. People make real actions off of felt intuitions so if you want to effect real change in people, you have to change how they feel.

Feelings don't care for facts, you have to earn trust to get them to have the right feeling and make real change.

You acknowledge this... so why are you pretending that scientific debate on matters of settled science is anything other than a waste of time? Scholarly debate is based on facts, which you've already agreed don't matter when it comes to highly emotive matters of feelings. You've also acknowledged that the people that don't understand science are working off of emotions rather than anything logical.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's why engaging with Joe openly with as much information as possible and ELI5 is so important. He's the person a lot of people trust, his beliefs effect many and there's no clear figurehead above him influencing his beliefs, they are his own so he has authority to challenge them in his own head.

Honestly, I think you have this backwards.

Even entertaining the hypothetical that "converting" Joe Rogan is possible, morons don't follow Joe Rogan because they trust him and therefore will accept his statements and beliefs; morons follow Joe Rogan because he validates their ill-founded beliefs and they therefore do not need to worry that their views will be in any way challenged. As soon as that is no longer true, they will turn on him and stop trusting him, probably with an accusation that he has "sold out" or otherwise been corrupted by the government/big pharma/the illuminati/*insert bogeyman of choice here*.

Hell, you can easily prove this for yourself. Take a look at Donald Trump - at a couple of events earlier this year, he touted the efficacy of vaccines and said that everyone should get them. You know what the crowd's reaction was?

They booed him.

The people who were so slavishly devoted to Donald Trump that some of them unironically referred to him as *god-emperor* fucking booed him purely because he dared voice an opinion that clashed with their beliefs.

There is no reason to think that Rogan would be any different.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You first get the morons, then when the smarter one responds, you demonstrate you have a counter at their level too so the morons see you weren't caught out.

Except the internet, where most of this takes place, isn't an open forum where people immediately respond to each other. You won't necessarily even be aware that the "smarter one" has even called you out, because it probably happened in a Facebook group somewhere that you're not involved with.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I don't think anybody has said that vaccines as a concept doesn't work, but I assume you've seen those kinds of people too, but when you tell them you're putting a piece in, they already know they get symptoms from it. That doesn't seem inactive to them.

Again, this is easily explained and has been explained plenty of times. You get symptoms from it because the symptoms are your body's immune system at work. As an example, the rhinovirus - the main virus behind the common cold - causes no symptoms in people with healthy immune systems; the runny nose, coughing, fever, etc., that you get when you have a cold is your body's immune response trying to kill and expel the virus. Vaccines work the same way - you feel sick because your body's immune system thinks you *are* sick and is responding in the same way it would if the disease was in your body, resulting in the symptoms.

That's not conceptually difficult to understand. The issue isn't that people don't understand, it's that they don't believe. Those are two fundamentally different issues.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How do you physically demonstrate that covid doesn't go through a mask? If they don't trust you, they can't prove it to themselves.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? It's like saying, "I don't believe diseases exist; I think sickness is spread through miasma." If they don't believe that, short of inviting them into a medical laboratory and letting them look through a microscope, you can't really convince them that their beliefs are wrong, and it's completely impractical to do that on a large scale.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's even worse with masks because we see people say "I can't breathe with a mask on" and the response be "yes you can, the air still goes through", but the person still feels a sensation that they interpret as difficulty breathing. I've never heard anybody address that

I have - specifically, by pointing out that people like doctors spend most of their days with masks on and they somehow don't asphyxiate.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's a good example of how poor the communication is. That's literally "If it's so perfect, why can't you prove it to me first and then I'll come take it?". They're not presented with information they can take in and make sense of.

Except... they have.

It has been explained, ad nauseum, how vaccines work, in terms basically anyone can understand. Here, I can do it right now - you get a small, inactive chunk of virus shot into your arm. Your body learns about it and develops special cells that are tailored to detect and kill it, so that if the actual virus ever shows up in your body, you will have cells there that can easily and quickly get rid of it before it does any serious damage. It's the biological equivalent of handing your body the Death Star plans so that all the little Luke Skywalkers floating around in your bloodstream figure out how to blow it up.

The issue isn't that people don't understand that; the issue is that they don't believe it. Which leads nicely to my next point...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They're defensive and suspicious, they haven't been given reason to trust your claims in their personal lives.

In your posts, you're making a critical assumption that is generally not true. You're assuming that these people are debating from a position of rationality and open-mindedness.

This is the closest part of your post to the truth, which is that for most of these people it is not an issue of facts, it is an issue of emotion. The issue isn't that they don't *understand* the facts and the data, the issue is that they don't *trust* the data. Scientific discussion and scholarly debate can clear up misunderstandings of data, but they do absolutely nothing to address lack of trust. If you don't trust the data being presented because you think that the government is secretly microchipping everyone or the 5G microwaves will mind control your brain or this is a plan by the illuminati to sterilize everyone and kill off the poor, more data and debate isn't going to address that issue.

Debating someone on an emotional issue is pointless. If you love the movie ABC and I tell you it's awful and give a three hour speech breaking down why, you're not going to change your mind or stop loving movie ABC. For most people who are on the anti-science side, they have made it an emotional issue. For some, it is part of their political identity, tied mostly to Trump constantly going on anti-science tirades and denying the seriousness of the virus; for others, it is part of their religious identity, as various preachers (again, mostly in the US) have spoken out against vaccines; and for some, it is a personal issue, as the virus has drained them so badly that they want to deny it exists in any way they can.

I can't help those people. No scientist can help those people. You could put these people in a four year course taught by Dr. Fauci himself, going over the science that led to the study of the disease and the development of the vaccine and not a single one of them would change their minds - in fact, the effort to convince them how wrong they were would likely only entrench their view that they are right and being subjugated/repressed/indoctrinated.

If it is an emotional issue, then someone with an emotional connection to that person is the only one who might convince them that they're wrong and even then, only by discussing it in emotional, non-scientific terms. More scientific explanation and debate does not help that process along - it is a waste of time.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When people lose willingness to be vulnerable and entertain ideas they disagree with, that's the death of any meaningful discussion.

Only one problem - you just described the climate deniers (and the COVID deniers, for that matter) in a nutshell. If someone is anti-science, they're not interested in entertaining ideas they disagree with - by your own admission, that means no meaningful discussion can take place, so why would we waste our time pretending otherwise?

I am perfectly willing to discuss and debate matters with someone I disagree with. I do it all the time, here and elsewhere. But on matters where the science is very much settled (and, frequently, the person on the other side of the debate isn't a professional who has anything to offer from a scientific perspective and is instead simply giving their own unfounded conjecture, typically cited from the University of Facebook), why bother? The only people who don't already acknowledge the facts of the matter are those who aren't interested in arguing in good faith.

If you don't believe that climate change is real or that vaccines don't cause autism or that Sandy Hook was a real attack and not a government false flag or any one of a number of other conspiracy theories, despite the mountain of evidence proving otherwise, no amount of reasoned arguments from me is going to change your mind. Accordingly, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of something you've already clearly made up your mind on. After all, if you don't trust known, accredited scientists willing to stake their names and reputations on their claims, you're probably not going to trust me, an anonymous voice on the internet, either.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

He's learned his stance in the first place, question is are you convincing enough to overrule what feels right to him.

Is adjl "convincing enough" to overrule what Joe "feels" is right? Do you not see the inherent problems in that question?

Science doesn't give a shit what you "feel", nor how convincing you are. You're either right or you aren't. Trust us or don't, acknowledge the science or don't, but it won't change reality.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This put well-established scientists in the firing line, and I haven't seen anybody trying to re-establish themselves by using hard data.

Hard data is being published daily that backs up what these scientists are saying and it has been cited extensively. The issue isn't that scientists aren't using hard data to establish themselves, it's that morons have convinced themselves that the hard data is fabricated.

When you reach that level of paranoia and denial of facts, basically nothing anyone says will reach you. Either there is someone in your life who you *do* trust who manages to break through the fog and convince you of the truth, or, more likely, you'll go on believing the lies unless and until life smacks you upside the head for it. Problem is, some of those smacks can be pretty damaging, if not outright fatal.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When it comes to science communicators, I often see covid communicated like word of God from on high, there's no Bill Nye type breaking it down in a simple enough form that the general public can actually understand.

This becomes a Catch-22, though. Present it in a simple manner (which, yes, has been done) and you'll get someone in the deniers group that actually has a basic grasp of science point out, correctly, "Dude, you're ridiculously oversimplifying it. Are you an idiot? It's way more complicated than that!". Then when you try to clarify and get into the thickets of details, most people's brains shut off because they don't have the knowledge base and educational backing to follow what you're saying. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I mean, what part of COVID specifically do you think hasn't been communicated in basic terms that a child could understand?

Well, the rioters finally appear to have been subdued. Tow trucks are impounding the big rigs, organizers have been arrested, police are upping their enforcement, and the numbers are dwindling.

Thank fuck. This took way too long to resolve.

Revelation34 posted...

You're not a scientist though.

Yes, I am. Have been for quite a while now (I don't like doxxing myself by giving absolute numbers, so I'll just say it's been over 20 years at this point).

To be fair, I'm not a climate scientist specifically, but I encounter similar science-deniers in my own line of work that I have to deal with.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's hardly a waste of time considering their sentiment's majorly detrimental effect on pandemic suppression.

Countless scientists have tried to debunk myths and "bad science" around the pandemic, vaccines, masks, etc. Any number of doctors, epidemiologists, and other medical professionals have been on TV, social media, Youtube, and anywhere else they can get a platform to explain that yes, vaccines work, yes, they're safe, yes, masks are effective, so on and so forth.

It has not slowed down the morons one bit.

Hell, half the time those arguments get thrown right back at the scientists. How many times have you seen a Boomer Facebook meme along the lines of, "If the vaccine is so perfect, why are the fighting so hard to force you to take it?".

To some people, the simple fact that you are debating their views on a good faith basis is affirmation that they must be on to something. That's why I've largely stopped trying to argue anti-science views as though their proponents are actual scholars worthy of recognition, because they never are. I will still correct misconceptions and falsehoods on public platforms where I see them, but I generally try to avoid getting sucked into arguments on specifics.

Social media has started to figure out that deleting these falsehoods is the appropriate remedy to them; letting people argue just adds more fuel to the fire.

Cool. Can we have weeklong debates on whether water is wet afterwards?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Any scientist worth their salt can and will back up their claims with observations, show how it was controlled for and explain how they assert their margin of error.

Bullshit we will.

I don't have time to debate every moron who wants to argue for hours about basic facts, thinking that their high school education and hundreds of hours reading Facebook memes equals my graduate degree, professional certification, and tens of thousands of hours of experience.

Could I have that debate? Sure. But will I? Fuck no. It is both beneath my dignity and a waste of my time to debate idiots and doing so gives their ill-founded views respect and attention they have not earned and do not deserve.

One does not have a serious, week-long debate with a toddler about the nutritional benefits of vegetables and why they should be eaten. Serious scientists should not be wasting their time debating climate change deniers, for pretty much the exact same reasons.

MartianManchild posted...

If the laws are there to actually protect people, there shouldnt be any exemptions.

You mean like how there's no exemptions to the law "no shooting people"?

Oh, wait, hang on, I'm being told there are exemptions to that law. Does that mean that laws against murdering one another aren't there to protect people?

Bugmeat posted...

I don't really get the Eric Clapton one. Not really familiar with his music.

Eric Clapton wrote "Tears in Heaven", probably his most famous/popular song, after his four-year-old son fell to his death out of an open window in a New York apartment building.

Well this topic just went somewhere.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/9/0/AABDhhAAC21a.jpg

papercup posted...

I cant tell if serious or not

I'll give you a hint - take a look at the rest of his posts and count how many of those images show up on basically any thread in the Herman Cain Awards subreddit.

MartianManchild posted...

I would think with your logical computer like brain, you would realize this is a war that will not be won on a global scale.

"Victory" against COVID-19 is not going to take the form of wiping out the virus; it's going to take the form of the virus death toll reaching manageable levels, not unlike the flu most years. That happens when both:
a) Enough people are immunized that the transmission rate and infection rate of the virus is significantly reduced
and
b) A mutation occurs that renders the virus less lethal overall.

We "won" against the 1918 flu pandemic. We didn't do that by eliminating the flu, we did it by outlasting that particular (extremely deadly) strain of the flu. We're trying to do the same thing now, but ideally we'd like it to happen without 100+ million people dying this time, something the anti-vaxxers seem bound and determined to repeat.

MartianManchild posted...

Do what you feel like you need to do to protect yourself. Wear a mask, social distance, get your boosters, but dont force that on other people who dont want to participate in your futile crusade.

No one is forcing you to do any of those things, but if you refuse to you don't get to participate in many aspects of society. And I'm completely fine with that, because whenever we let you guys run around unchecked, you turn into plague vectors that clog up the hospitals.

You have a right to decide what happens to your body, but the rest of us have a vested interest in limiting the resultant strain you put on the health care system we all share.

So, has anyone ever seen a conservative meme that's actually funny? Because I feel like that's a sighting rarer than Bigfoot.

MartianManchild posted...

I was only pointing out how these new variants are being brought over by people who are fully vaccinated and they are not arising here in the US from our unvaccinated population. It appears that these variants will never go away on a global scale, so maybe we should just accept that and move on with our lives. If you want a shot or booster, go get it, but putting out mandates and saying hateful and derogatory things about people who choose not to get vaccinated isnt and will never change anything as far as this current situation goes.

I'd be in favour of this as long as anyone who is unvaccinated who subsequently comes down with COVID is barred from receiving any medical care for it, including hospital stays.

Frankly, I'm past caring if anyone who is too moronic to understand what a vaccine is and why taking one to combat a fucking global pandemic is a good idea decides they want to soapbox. You want to roll the dice on drowning on your own liquefied lungs? Fine, be my guest.

But I sure as shit care when I read in the paper that the hospitals are almost full and that those who need medical care and aren't braindead morons are getting turned away because the doctors are too busy trying to save idiots who were too selfish and stubborn to take the literal 20 minutes out of their life it would have taken to get a shot that would have averted the whole thing. I'm currently unable to travel internationally, attend mass gatherings, or do dozens of other "normal" things because selfish pricks insist on putting their fear of needles above the common good of the entire fucking human race.

So yeah, you want to play Russian Roulette with the most deadly pandemic we've had in the last 100 years other than HIV/AIDS? Go hog wild. But if shit hits the fan for you, you better fucking take it on the chin and not rush to those doctors whose help you spurned when they told you to get vaccinated. You made your bed - don't be surprised if you're asked to go lie in it.