Lurker > DarkBuster22904

How damning an indictment of capitalism is it that we could theoretically automate every field of labor, production, industry, EVERYTHING, and instead of an idyllic utopia where everyone is free to pursue their passions, its instead a hellscape nightmare scenario where we all go homeless and starve?

Seriously. Racists were raising hell about black Ariel; she's probably going to be the only good thing in this movie. At least she can sing.

"live action" cgi talking fish, crabs, and eels were always going to be an absolute abomination.Especially with the gross, washed out "realistic" colors and lighting.

I'm just hoping to finally understand why everybody loves Cal Kestis.

I swear, the whole internet fwll in love with the guy, and I don't get why. He's as plain-oatmeal a protagonist as the series has ever seen.

I'm gonna go to bat for the criminally underrepresented south Indian cuisine. a good dosa it top-tier food

no.

Illuminations style works well for mario. Maybe Kirby, too.

Illuminations doing Zelda or Metroid would be a categorically stupid decision.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

I would bust out laughing if I got something like this LOL. What a weird route to go through just to flame someone >_>

You would be surprised how common it is

Remember when Trump started an insurrection that erected gallows outside the capital, tried to hang mike pence, execute several congressmen, and overthrow our electoral process?

Congress doesn't. But we do.

Get fucked, Schmucker! You lying piece of shit!

*ahem*

This is a good morning.

Elon Musn't

No.

I hate a large number of people who practice it, though.

Lairen posted...

But also: he acts like he must kill everyone if he kills anyone. Like ok....hes crazy.

Or he knows his own limits.

He's a guy with nearly infinite resources, no accountability, a super pragmatic attitude, and a lot of inner demons. If he decides to execute his villains, he knows himself well enough that it will get easier and easier to make the choice again, and that there's barely anyone who would be able to stop him if he went too far. He does not see himself as fit enough to just "become" the system. Better to just leave that door closed.

And let's be real here. For as many times as he's literally handed them over on a silver platter, it's not batman's fault that every single justice system in his world absolutely refuses to properly handle the villains he captures. "Batman should just kill the joker-" dude, the Joker should have gotten the chair decades ago, instead of his 3,423rd stay at Arkham.

cjsdowg posted...

But then Running a race for him and letting people know.

"For" him.

She's a marathon runner. they train extensively for this shit. She'd have been there running one way or another. It's not like she's soliciting donations, doing fundraising, tying herself to some cancer fund, or anything else. He gets literally nothing out of this. It's a worthless gesture to make herself feel better.

lolife67 posted...

Well like I said earlier she can still be supportive as a friend, which considering he seems ok with it, is likely where she's coming from.

"I know I left you in order to help myself while you're dealing with stage 4 brain cancer, but I'll still tell people I'm doing it for you while completing a personal athletic milestone!"

"... thanks for your support..."

"If you're writing a batman story, try to picture your batman comforting a crying child. If you can't do that, you haven't written Batman, you've written Punisher with a funny hat."

If you don't want to stay with someone with cancer, fine. you do you. we can debate the morality of that if we want. I think it's a bit of a dick move, but whatever.

But if you DO decide to leave them, you do not get to publicly parade their name around in some sick feel-good campaign that's clearly a ploy to fish for sympathy for yourself.

Like, what do you mean "running it in his honor?" You abandoned him to help yourself, and are now doing something functionally worthless for his "cause." Just own it.

So not actively hunting and persecuting homisexuality is abandoning the word of christ, but clinging to "fuck you got mine" neo-capitalism is not.

Got it.

dameon_reaper posted...

"Try pressing the on button and see what happens then."

"How do I do that?"

"Do you see a big round button on the little black box under your screen?"

"Yes."

"Press it."

*waited ten seconds*

"Ok, I did that, but a bunch of lights came on on it, so I pressed it again and now they're back off."

This call was burned into my memory.

"So I talked to my manager before I called you guys, and they said that some people fixed this problem by shutting down their computer. So I did that, and now the screen is all dark, and I can't do anything. What happened!?"

-actual call from an actual user who I'm sure made more money than me

I am so glad I got out of level 1 support. Not having to deal with end users anymore has put 10 years back on my life expectancy.

TheSavageDragon posted...

That's the one thing that honestly makes sense. The masters are by far the biggest threat by themselves. A single master could easily take out several dozen storm/clone troopers if not for the surprise attack. So of course the focus would be on taking them down during that first wave.

And yet they sent two whole clones to kill Yoda. And unconfirmed fuck-ups like the one with Obi Wan.

And even removing the statistical probability of more fuck ups like those, I still don't really buy it. Focus or no, surprise or no, we see even padawans mowing through literal hundreds of non-force-sensitive combatants at a time. Maul managed to fight his way through half the 501st completely unarmed with no trouble. Even surprised, out of all the masters we actually see die, I'd argue only Ayla Secura and Plo Koon actually make sense.

Were_Wyrm posted...

At this point if I didn't see them die on screen I'm assuming they're still alive.

And the distribution is just wild.

At this point we have actual legions of padawans, younglings, and overall scrubs surviving, but damn near every seasoned master bit it during the first wave? Even taking the jedi's self-sacrificing nature into account, I've gotta call bullshit. We've got 6 year old younglings Berserker Raging their way into surviving getting impaled in the chest, and fuck-ups like sending TWO CLONES to kill YODA, and I'm expected to believe all the competent jedi were seamlessly killed, sparing only the weak ones?

I mean, I had a good time with it, but I acknowledge that it's mostly the mario fanboy in me.

The movie does great as an hour and a half "mario Easter egg" spectacle. It definitely succeeds at what it was trying to be, and I respect that.

Unfortunately, what it was trying to be has less substance than a twinkie.

We had a slight sausage malfunction, but we're all fine here, now... thank you.... how are you?

cyberpunk vampire cheerleader

Who the hell cares? They felt easy was perfectly balanced; you're good enough that you can do better.

Of course big publications are going to play on easier modes. They have incredibly tight deadlines and need to see as much of the game as they can.

Moreover, it's high time the Difficulty Gatekeepers realize that they are the minority. Like, a tiny minority. "Gamer" isn't some niche anymore like it was in the 90s, damn near every household in the country has a console in it, and casual players massively outgun the Hardcore Elite. Every major publication is going to cater to them because that's where the numbers are. And no amount of Elden Ring anomalies is going to shake that. Want something catered to the "hardcore" crowd, find a YouTuber. Because a small operation is all that can afford to cater to a niche.

Gamers are casual. Time for us to get over it.

And no, saying "I'm not that good" means nothing. The minute you complain about "removing all challenge from a game," you are by default more hardcore than the actual casual crowd.

Wow, that was... weak.

I mean, it was fine. But out of all the Mandalorian finales, that was definitely the worst one

MrResetti posted...

It's not the cheese that makes them good it's the seasoned salt

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/0/9/AAOdzqAAEVnV.jpg

Wat

I live in Atlanta. Am I allowed to trash the south?

I really don't get why everyone always brings up Cal as a candidate for cameos.

I mean, I feel like I missed something. His game was fun, but he was about as bland, whitebread a protagonist as star wars has seen. I really don't see why him showing up would be so "hype."

Regardless, I think this is the season we lose. Also, there is absolutely no way they top S2's finale; that scene is up there with legendary television moments PERIOD, I don't think we're ever gonna see it beaten.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The south would immediately collapse under the weight of the economic sanctions, paired with having no friends internationally, especially given who their elected leaders would likely be.

Their agrarian economy carries a lot less weight today than it did in the 1860s. Many of their major industries would pack up and leave to go back to where the profits are. And having no presence on the international stage would destroy them. I can't think of any major power who would recognize or help them.

youenjoymyself1 posted...

Lol if you think the us government would glass it's own cities to just to make a point. We woulda nuked Vietnam an d Afghanistan before we nuke our own people.

Like damn did you even read that post before you started in on the nukes and drones bs again?

There was no actual threat in Vietnam or Afghanistan. We literally could just pack up and leave whenever.

You're discussing an active rebellion situation where the people in charge would be, theoretically, legitimately afraid for their own lives, safety, or more likely their power. A scenario where they've already turned the full might of the military on the populace. What about that batshit scenario makes you think they WOULDN'T glass the populace if they legitimately thought they would lose?

Malcrasternus posted...

Ah yes, best to just give up now since the government can just. . .

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAL4msAADpRq.jpg

. . .nuke its own citizens?

Give up what? This hypothetical conservative wet dream of a bunch of blue collar workers getting together to re-enact Olympus Has Fallen?

We're literally discussing why gun control is bad because it leaves us vulnerable to a made-up threat that has no practical reason to ever happen, and the best you can come up with is "yeah, they're bad enough to have the military start mowing down civilians and seizing cities, but nuking them is just TOO FAR!"

youenjoymyself1 posted...

You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.

A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.

None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.

BUT when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are out numbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency the the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks and improvised explosives because these big scary military monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.

And as soon as they have too much trouble they drop a nuke or two to send a message. No reason not to, as there is no threat of nuclear retaliation.

Game over.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

people should have guns so they can kill home invaders or anyone that threatens their lives or the lives of others.

I'll tell you what. Own up to and explain the crap you pulled here, and I'll pretend you're posting in good faith:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80415067

youenjoymyself1 posted...

You'd never get the public behind you on banning teens from driving (even though more teenage drivers kill people than teenage shooters).

Which is my total point. You don't see one politician talking about restricting driving, but half of them talking about restricting guns. Makes one think that it isn't about our safety? No?

Against my better judgment, I'll bite.

Yes, it is for safety. Because cars have utility, and in our society necessity, outside of killing things. Guns do not. They are explicitly designed to kill, whether in defense or otherwise. That is their primary function.

And the government has no interest in disarming the populace for some nefarious "control" goal. There's no point. No matter what right wing pundits like to spout, no amount of Mississippi rednecks with AR-15s has a single prayer of even slowing down the US military. For as many consumer guns are out in the wild, if the government wanted to send in the military and crack down on us, there is not a damn thing any Militia can do to stop it. Between air superiority, drone strikes, actual military training and coordination, all the way up to the nuclear arsenal. If the government wants to oppress us, they can. There's no need for "disarmament." This isn't the 1780s or even the 1920s where the gap in firepower was much less pronounced. These "empowered" citizens are literally paper tigers before a hurricane.

Take this in a heartbeat

Southernfatman posted...

Did Lincoln need to appease the south there to win the election? I'm curious and find this interesting.

Not a matter of winning the election. The election was in 1864, and the war was still very much on. Lincoln had the election on lock.

It was purely to project an image of unity and bipartisanship, in the hopes it would help heal the country after the war. Whether it would have worked had Lincoln lived, tough to say. All we can definitively say is that him getting presidential power was absolutely devastating to the country. and its effects are still felt to this day.

This video is... really long, but it's a very in-depth and structured look at some of the crap the south and the then-democrat-now-republicans got up to after the Civil War in order to keep their slave trade running. I'd recommend giving it a watch.

https://youtu.be/j4kI2h3iotA

Southernfatman posted...

that out of his control?

oh no, it was definitely in his control. It was absolutely a gesture to try to bridge the gap with the south.

The issue was that it was meant to be an almost empty gesture. Lincoln was in perfectly good health at the time, and the idea that he would be assassinated wasn't given a ton of forethought given it had never happened to a sitting president, before. Johnson was absolutely never meant to be president.

Southernfatman posted...

Lincoln is cool and all, but he was so naive at times.

Very little if it was even his fault. He WAS penalizing the south more harshly. He DID issue land/money/reparations to former slaves.

It was his shitty "reach across the aisle to make friends" VP who was the problem. Which sadly came down to bear in 1865.

CyricZ posted...

What if I were to say "let them die"?

I would probably have to mod you. And would caution that there are enough of them that martyrdom on that scale would be very likely to instigate a massive Civil War from messaging alone.

CyricZ posted...

While DarkBuster's post seems pragmatic the issue is that it basically admits that we're being held hostage by our own fellow citizens.

Because we are. No "basically" about it.

Gun culture is practically a religion, here. And shutting it down is tantamount to shutting down a religion. And I'm not talking about a small cult like Heaven's Gate either, I'm talking about a massive, state-sanctioned national religion. We are fed propaganda from the time of our youth about how important gun rights are, how a bunch of farmers with muskets supposedly toppled the British empire, and how only nazi dictatorships disarm the populace. And millions upon millions of us cling to that crap for dear life. And they absolutely will line up to throw their lives away if they feel genuinely threatened that their military grade rifles might be taken away.

There is not a single peice if legislation conceived by man or machine that has a prayer of breaking through the literal gun indoctrination of these people. They already turn a blind eye to the literal PLANET of evidence from nations worldwide showing the positive effects of stricter control. And we have no answer for the literal 400 million guns out in the wild. We just don't.

The closest thing we have is a shift in younger demographics. Kids growing up now have a grossly different perspective, and the modern climate has broken down the propaganda machine enough that it's not really making any more new victims. Like so many other things, our one salvation is waiting for more of the older generations to steadily retire/die out, and for more millennials/zoomers to take power.

Even then, expect shootouts with the lardbucket "Weekend Warrior Militia" types the minute any actual meaningful legislation gets through.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Lawabiding citizen has no guns. Criminals walks in with a gun.

Have to hide and hope police arrive in time :C

Funny how this isn't the case literally anywhere else in the world with strict gun laws

Almost like those laws when PROPERLY implemented make it harder for criminals to get the guns, too.

It's literally only america where just WANTING one makes it basically a foregone conclusion that you'll get one.

Chrknu posted...

What makes you say that it won't matter to criminals or stupid/irresponsible people? I heard that both Switzerland and Australia (brought up in gun control videos) are examples where regulation seems to not support that statement. Are there any examples where regulation have made it worse or no change?

The difference is that neither Switzerland nor Australia have ever had to deal with America's stupid as hell gun culture, nor have they had to deal with massive cartel/smuggling rings right next door, more than willing to supply a massive black market.

The reality in the US is that we have 400 million guns already out in the wild, many unregistered, untracked, and no way to deal with them. Even if we implemented a buyback program like has been done in other countries, our ridiculously "rah rah mah freedums" culture is going to prevent the exact people we want to turn them in from doing so. Especially for the "$25 and a sundae" price that our dipshit government would almost assuredly go with.

And even if it was more successful than any buyback program in history and we somehow got 150 million guns off the streets... there would still be 250 million left. Like, the sheer extent of the problem is absolutely MASSIVE.

And any more aggressive gun seizure will literally cause a civil war. Straight up. The headlines the next day would read "tens of thousands dead in shootouts with federal officers." Because our gun culture teaches that it is better to literally die fighting the government rather than surrender a single gun, and tens of millions of people believe it to a religious degree.

The fact is that America ISNT England, Australia, or Switzerland. An INCREDIBLY, VIOLENTLY disagreeable populace makes most of the tangible, radical reforms nigh on impossible.

The best we can do is implement better background checks to stop any more guns from getting into the wild; but with 400 million already out there, unmonitored, that barely qualifies as stopping the bleeding.

And before anyone comes at me with "well, clearly the answer is to do NOTHING according to you," shove it. I'm in full support of whatever stricter gun controls we want to implement, because no amount of guns is worth even a single dead kid. That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge the very real cultural, logistical, and yes, uniquely American problems we're facing

Zelda
Metroid
God of War
Minecraft
Maybe another crack at Final Fantasy? Unlikely, given how the rest did...

The only reason to play Green is to use the pokemon with the worst, jankiest sprites.

So like... chameleon, mew, gengar, Montreal, dragonite, and fearow

What a world we live in where the last line was the only indication this was an onion article.

Tig posted...

I'd like to buy a vow please.

Most of them are Russian, these days

So he wants to seize the assets/means of production of a private entity and nationalize the land, using it as state-run propaganda for the people?

Sounds pretty... COMMUNIST to me!

CyricZ posted...

It's certainly her take on the scenario.

But even if it were a flat out lie, is that against the TOS?

When it is quantifiably false, a fact that she has been informed of multiple times, by multiple individuals, on many occasions, and yet she continues to quintuple down, yes. It can be. Knowingly and deliberately misleading/misrepresenting information is explicitly mentioned within the ToS. Her main was banned for a very notable trolling incident where, after very publicly and vocally condemning the game for months, she misled and blasted out end game spoilers in a shameless attempt to ruin the game for others. She knows this.

This is not unique to gunpla. Many, many, many users are routinely modded for doing the same thing. See: near every "I was modded just for having a harmless [party] opinion" post that strategically omits the inflammatory/insulting/racist/sexist/bigoted/outright genocidal context of said opinion's presentation.

As for the severity of the penalty, like many other things, it cones down to known information, and history. And, much as someusers here wish it, hopping on an alt and coming back in wearing the equivalent of a fake mustache does not magically grant a 100% clean slate.

I'm like 95% sure that button is just cosmetic.

The YouTube algorithm cares not for what you say you want.