Lurker > adjl

green dragon posted...

I dunno man, I'm still not convinced lootboxes are anything like a scam.

Lootboxes aren't a scam, but being taken advantage of by a lootbox system is like being taken advantage of by a scam. Those are in fact two different comparisons, if you distill the concepts down to their core logical components. Ergo, being okay with saying that people who are taken advantage of deserve it in one of those situations but not the other is logically inconsistent.

ZiggiStardust posted...

adjl posted...

When an adverb is applied to an adjective, it alters its meaning, usually to make it more specific and discuss a narrower concept than would be discussed if the adverb were not present.

semantics, your favorite subject when you're proven wrong, ok?

I do like pointing out that the thing that was proven wrong isn't actually what I said, but I'm not sure I'd call proving something I didn't say wrong really counts as proving me wrong. That sounds pretty strawman-ish. And by "pretty strawman-ish," I mean "literally the exact definition of a strawman fallacy."
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SushiSquid posted...

This is among the stupidest things I've read in the past month. We can all know one thing from this topic, TC has never had anything bad happen in their life and clearly thus doesn't understand trauma.

This.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mipond posted...

I just question why all of a sudden this is coming up now.

Because it's a matter that, for many years, victims have been strongly pressured not to talk about. In the wake of people starting to talk about it, though, everyone is starting to feel more comfortable fighting back against that pressure and breaking that silence, and you've got a whole lot of people sharing their stories.

SmokeMassTree posted...

Some of them tho just feel like propositions for sex. Are we calling that sexual harassment now?

If it's from someone in a position of power, potentially. There's definitely an established norm wherein turning down a director's advance can cost you the job and result in an influential person badmouthing you to the rest of the industry. There's ample precedent of exactly that happening, such that those fears are pretty well-founded. To that end, anyone who is in a position of power needs to be very careful about how they approach subordinates that they want to sleep with. That's one of the responsibilities of having that kind of power. That abuse of power is the actual problem, and what needs to stop, but until it stops it's important for everyone in such a position to recognize the potential for intimidation there and ensure that any sexual activity they engage in is fully consensual.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Golden Road posted...

Mead posted...

Anyone else think it is weird that all the pervs outed this year have been older white guys? Is it just because there are so many white dudes in hollywood or what

It's not that surprising. It's mostly people rich and powerful enough to get away with it, which is largely older white guys.

That, and when people that aren't so high up in the industry end up with allegations against them, they don't really make the news like they do when it happens to a bigger name.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mooreandrew58 posted...

less people probably took photos like that back and likely because of this reason.

A big part of it was also the difficulty of sharing them. Sexting is an instantaneous form of flirtation, which taking nude photos on film just couldn't be. For long-distance relationships, you could take photos, have them developed, then mail them (or scan and email, in the rather short period where scanners are practical to have at home, but digital cameras weren't), but that was the closest you could get. Most nude pictures would have been a collaborative effort.

There's also the fact that people just plain take more pictures now. It's far, far more practical to keep a thousand vacation pictures on a single SD card than to have to bring 42 rolls of film along on a trip. Photography strategies have also changed because of how immediately you get feedback with a digital shot, and how easily you can take several similar shots and pick your favourite. That's also why selfies have become a thing, since with a film camera you really can't do the sort of trial-and-error needed to get one you like (or have the screen and lens facing the same way, as became an option with flip-out screens, and later front cameras), and that's also been a huge boon for self-shot nude photos.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Telling them not to take the candy is a precautionary measure. Leaving the precautionary measures at that would be victim blaming.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

green dragon posted...

You can say the same thing for advertisements.

You can indeed, which is why there are standards in place to govern advertising. Advertising that is deemed too manipulative, exploitative, or directly harmful is prohibited or otherwise restricted (as PO covered above). You also see push back similar to the opposition to loot boxes in particularly egregious cases of manipulative marketing that aren't actually prohibited. The "pink tax" is probably the best-known example there. This is nothing particularly unique.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

green dragon posted...

But the thing is that loot boxes and being scammed are not logically identical.

They don't have to be. The key point here is that the person is buying something they would not have bought if not for the seller manipulating them. The nature of that manipulation differs, yes, in that outright deception is not the same as creating an environment that subtly encourages you to spend the money, but that underlying point still stands. Blaming somebody for being manipulated into buying a loot box is conceptually the same as blaming somebody for being manipulated into buying into a scam: in both cases, the blame actually lies on the one conducting the manipulation, and placing it on the consumer is victim blaming.

Basically, stupid people can't be expected to know any better. People that are exploiting stupid people can, however, and have chosen that exploitation knowing full well that that's what they're doing. Ergo, blame them.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It's freedom like y-WILL I EVER BE FREE OF THIS SONG AAAAHHHHHGGLGLKDSL;GR
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I should probably spend the 3500-odd points I've got sitting on my Wii, if the eshop's disappearing. That'd be unfortunate to waste.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ZiggiStardust posted...

you said that it was the same as people losing money to scam artists. a scam artist's prime trade, by title, are scams, ok?

would you disagree?

adjl posted...

logically identical

When an adverb is applied to an adjective, it alters its meaning, usually to make it more specific and discuss a narrower concept than would be discussed if the adverb were not present.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But honestly, I'm more annoyed by the trend when it hurts games/franchises like Mass Effect (and studios like BioWare), or when it encourages publishers to phase out major single-player titles entirely, because those are things that will absolutely impact my future buying practices negatively.

I'm not really too concerned about that. As much as publishers and other industry mouthpieces like to say that single-player is dead or dying, it's really not. They've been saying that for years, but single-player isn't going anywhere (aside from the occasional phase of shoehorning multiplayer into games that shouldn't have it, which passes pretty quickly when those who shoehorned it in look at server usage stats). Publishers just wish it was, because it's a lot harder to monetize single-player games without actually putting effort into developing content (that, or pissing people off by limiting what they can do without paying, a la Dead Space 3 or SoW). The studios that aren't trying to squeeze every possible penny out of their customers are quite happily making delightful single-player games.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

adjl posted...

Saying people who are dumb enough to buy lootboxes deserve to lose their money is logically identical to saying that people who lose money to scam artists deserve it, which is placing the blame on the victims of the scam and not on the person who deceived them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DistantMemory posted...

I don't think it's bigoted to say that this is really fucking stupid.

It is, but furries are well-enough established as being Internet punching bags that you're unlikely to get anyone challenging you for it.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Yellow posted...

ReggieTheReckless posted...

Yellow posted...

He'll be back in two years lol.

Or he could invest his money properly and live off the interest so he never has to work again?

Doesn't seem that hard

I say that because that's actually what happens to most lottery winners. They overestimate how much money they actually have. He doesn't seem like the brightest bulb, so I wouldn't have too much faith about that.

Like he's going to invest that, lol.

Pretty much. A couple million isn't actually that much. You can invest it and live quite comfortably off of a 3-5% return, but if he's the sort of person who spends $20 a day on the lottery and quit his job the instant he won, I'm guessing smart investment for a frugal-yet-comfortable life isn't at the top of the list of things he plans to do with the money. I'd expect quite a few big purchases before he gets to the idea of investing it, by which point that capital's going to be much, much lower.

Revelation34 posted...

A nice house is actually a good investment.

Ehh, that's debatable. Real estate as an investment is pretty risky, and the higher your property value goes, the higher your property taxes go. Buying an expensive house when the guy doesn't have any income outside of investments might not be the best idea.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

TheCyborgNinja posted...

I'm certainly never going to look at the Bunsmaster bakery in the same light again.

I propose we switch the terms entirely. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go pick up some hamburger ass for dinner.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Troll_Police_ posted...

lol, you are f***ing ridiculous. you know that right? spending money on micro-transactions makes you a VICTIM?

A victim of psychologically manipulative marketing practices, yes. Saying people who are dumb enough to buy lootboxes deserve to lose their money is logically identical to saying that people who lose money to scam artists deserve it, which is placing the blame on the victims of the scam and not on the person who deceived them.

Troll_Police_ posted...

hurry up now, you gotta copypaste some s*** from wikipedia

I wonder if Wikipedia would even have anything particularly relevant here. We're discussing some fairly abstract concepts, which I wouldn't expect an article for. *Shrug*

Troll_Police_ posted...

Andromicus posted...

who the fuck are you again?

Somebody who noticed how triggered you are, obviously.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

On top of which, there are always going to be the people who go "Well, I dislike what Warner Bros is doing with Shadow of War microtransactions, but I liked Shadow of Mordor, so I really want to play it anyway. And they say the microtransactions only affect end-game content and I probably won't play that anyway. So I'll buy it."

Yep. That's why I'm not buying Shadow of War until I can get it dirt cheap, if at all (ideally, in a humble bundle where I give WB $0.01 for it). Not buying the microtransactions is good and all, but spending $60 on the game would still be saying that I'm okay with what they've done, and I'm not. On so, so many levels (gutting the base game to make collector's editions more appealing, the whole loot box thing, monetizing the development team's memorial for their friend, having the honour of being the first game in a humble bundle to hoard the full $60 to themselves no matter how much the customer wants to give to charity...). It's really unfortunate, because SoM was great and I was looking forward to a sequel, but they ruined it.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

You can still complete every available achievement and call that 100%, even if the game doesn't explicitly say it's 100%. Online-tied achievements tend to be pretty dumb anyway, so it's not like you're missing out on particularly fun completionism.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Xenoblade Chronicles (the first more so than X, but X is also quite good).
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Noop_Noop posted...

I suggest you put off getting a bunch of games until the winter sale that will most likely start right after Thanksgiving

This. They typically do a fall/winter sale around Black Friday, a Christmas sale toward the end of the year, some kind of spring sale, and a summer sale in mid-July, plus a horror-themed one for halloween. This is in addition to mid-week and weekend sales, the occasional publisher-based or other themed sale, and daily sales, all of which happen year-round.

Don't feel like you have to rush to populate your library. That will come very quickly just by picking up games that pique your interest when they get a good sale, especially if you get bundles (keep an eye on the Humble Bundles as well, since they're VERY economical). Just pick up cheap games that interest you, wishlist interesting games you find that aren't on sale yet so you can track them, and your library will grow pretty quickly.

SushiSquid posted...

Wait for Black Friday and Cyber Monday and upgrade your machine. As long as your PSU will support it, even tossing in a cheap video card will often let you play everything, just on low settings. You may have to spend a bunch to make games beautiful, but not to just be able to play them.

Also that. Even some fairly cheap upgrades will get you playing just about anything, if you aren't worried about getting the best performance. Do some research about the minimums you'll need, and see if you can meet those with discounted hardware.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

4.2 hours. Two weeks ago, that would probably have been much higher because I was playing a lot of Path of Exile, but Mario came out and that was my overwhelming focus up until I 100%'d it the day before yesterday.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Sarcasthma posted...

Hows everyone enjoying the new Bunsbunsins Creed?

Beat me to it, you insufferable bunshole.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Zeus posted...

And, if you're ever met a real-life atheist, you'd know that many of them *are* pretty aggressive when it comes to trying to convert people.

I've met atheists that are openly derisive about religion, and I've met atheists that are perfectly happy to live and let live. It's not something you can really generalize that thoroughly.

FolkenRawr posted...

For one, I've seen douchebag atheists/agnostics call the religious stupid, but I've never seen any actually wish ill will as I've absolutely seen religious folks do.

It's worth noting that there's a distinct difference between "I hope you burn in Hell" and "you're going to burn in Hell." The former is wishing ill will, the latter is simply a statement of belief (albeit one that's very clearly meant to motivate some sort of behavioural change, since it's supposed to sound threatening). You probably also have seen atheists wish ill will over religious beliefs, even if it hasn't necessarily been for merely being religious. Sending death threats to anti-LGBT figures (sentiments which usually have a religious basis, given that that's the closest thing to a supporting argument anyone can come up with) are a good example of this.

FolkenRawr posted...

Furthermore, my family is Jewish, I'm the one that isn't religious anymore in the least and have been looked down on for it. As an agnostic that was raised Jewish, cursing me with never having bacon is basically the most awful thing you could ever say to me. I love baecon.

A possibility which I did not explicitly consider. In that case, just pretend I said something like "a person who is happily Jewish and has no desire to break kosher" instead of just "a Jewish person." In your case, may you continue to enjoy a healthy amount of bacon as desired for the remainder of your natural life.

R0R0N0A-Z0R0 posted...

Since this is a religion topic and @adjl is pretty active, I'd like to hear your feedback on this video, adjl.

I'll take a look at it later, but I can't really right now.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

WastelandCowboy posted...

"To leave it open forever to that fingerprint, for instance, means that you could go after somebody whose phone you've stolen, get a fingerprint off their glasses weeks later ... break into their house and get their fingerprint. And that would be a huge security vulnerability."

That sounds like kind of a stretch. Intuitively, disabling fingerprint access after 48 hours does seem to make sense, but justifying it like that just sounds ridiculous and paranoid.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Troll_Police_ posted...

so yeah, just gonna plug those ears. got it.

That's also hilarious coming from you. You're on a roll today.

ZiggiStardust posted...

what a weird way to go through life assuming that about everyone, ok?

That's not really an assumption. That's just how discussions work.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Troll_Police_ posted...

adjl posted...

FolkenRawr posted...

Then again, no atheist has ever told my mother that she, my sisters and I are going to hell for not being Christians(Catholic)

To be fair, that's a pretty meaningless comment to anyone that doesn't already believe in Hell. It's still mean-spirited, but it's kind of like trying to curse a Jewish person by saying "may you never eat bacon again!"

so what you are saying is that starting an argument with the assumption that other people already agree with your viewpoint is stupid and meaningless?

did you learn anything about yourself from that statement, or do you just plug your ears and scream "NOTME NOTME NOTME!"

Good Lord you're trying too hard. And coming from me, that's saying something.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Golden Road posted...

And playing every game to completion (I do not understand that requirement a lot of people place on reviewers)

I understand it to a certain extent. Not all games show their quality up-front. Many require you to get a fair ways into them before you can really get a feel for them, so assessing the game before that point means you aren't giving the game a thorough review. Beating them isn't generally going to be necessary, but it is definitely true that games get shafted in reviews because of a slow start or steep learning curve.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mooreandrew58 posted...

true, but what some of us hate, is how a game will make getting certain things extremely hard to get in order to persuade you. even if you aren't convinced to buy one, you suffer having to deal without most likely unless you get lucky or work your ass off for more time than its worth.

That is the core of the problem. As much as publishers like to say "it's your choice whether or not you buy them," a game designed with monetisation like that in mind is going to do everything it can to convince you to make the choice to pay extra. Whether it's making the game just a bit too grindy without buying microtransactions (Dead Space 3), making sure you are reminded the option of paying exists on a regular basis (Destiny 2), or making it so you see all the cool stuff other people are getting for the money they spent (CoD: WWII), effectively implementing microtransactions in a game means taking away as much of that player choice as you can safely get away with.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Victim blaming! Whee!
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

dancer62 posted...

Unfortunately, I do live in the bible belt.

In which case, saying you haven't run into any condescending atheists doesn't actually mean much, since atheists are going to be too small of a minority to have that kind of presence there. Again, it's very much a regional thing. You're going to see far more evangelical christians and far fewer pushy atheists in the bible belt than you would elsewhere, especially in an urban setting.

dancer62 posted...

And, no, viewing harmless toys or icons of other cultures as "tools of the devil" is definitely a Christian conceit.

Specifically as tools of the devil? Yes, but that's kind of a tautological thing to say. More generally calling them superstitious nonsense? That's nothing unique, and certainly within the realm of atheistic condescension.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Rockies posted...

I still have a lot of moons to go, but I don't feel like I'm going to have to grind many coins to get everything. Granted, I did use the two wedding amiibo, but that's only a savings of 6000, and you guys are talking about numbers much larger than that.

Collecting all of the regular moons will take you up to 880ish, so you'll need about 12,000 coins to hit 999. On top of that, there's one costume for 9999 coins, then another four outfits that cost 3000 each for a total of 22,000 for the endgame costumes, or 16,000 if you've got two for free. That's not as bad as it looks on paper, since it's not like you aren't already collecting coins as you go through the game, but I'd still be looking at grinding another 12,000 even if I'd used those amiibo, and that's after using the ones I'd already accumulated.

Now, the grind's not actually that bad. It does go quite quickly, as daunting as the numbers look, and I imagine I could probably finish it off in an hour or two. But that's an hour or two of running the same subzone repeatedly, which is pretty dull and a really unpleasant contrast with the variety and fun of the rest of the game.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DistantMemory posted...

Man this thread blew up. Is it still adjl pretending that atheists are as evangelical as religious people?

You sound very out of touch with what's actually being said here. You'd probably benefit from reading a bit more of the topic before commenting further.

dancer62 posted...

I've had zero athiest grocery cashiers tell me to have a "blessed" day.

That makes you sound like the sort of person who gets offended when a cashier says "merry Christmas."

dancer62 posted...

I've had zero athiest cashiers sneer at me for buying tarot cards or even a toy "magic 8-ball".

That surprises me, simply because there's no shortage of cynics who would sneer at those things regardless of any religious objections.

dancer62 posted...

I have no evangelistic athiests interrupting me by pounding on my door to invite me to their church.

And again, the door-knocking is mostly mormons and JW's, in the majority of the Christian-dominated world. That's a consequence of their doctrine explicitly including missionary work. Most other denominations don't do such things, so generalizing the practice to all Christians is incorrect.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

adjl posted...

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

You seriously believe if a Christian says something like God is good, I feel so blessed today that theyre trying to convert people?

As much as somebody who says "Mario Odyssey is a really good game" is trying to convince other people to try it out.

Youre assuming peoples intentions. Im never trying to convince someone try out a game when I simply say that the game is good. If I want to get them to try it Ill just say You should try it. Youre basically saying that no one can make a positive or negative statement about anything without there being a persuasion motive behind it.

Again, there are varying degrees of persuasive speech. "You should try it" makes a much more persuasive statement than "this is good" on its own. Simply saying that it's good, though, is still sharing your joy with others, which in turn invites them to experience whatever it was that has given you that joy. It's not necessarily an intentional thing, but that is the nature of stating opinions. Nothing is ever just an opinion. Every statement of opinion has some persuasive power, and "it's just my opinion" just means the person doesn't feel strongly enough about the matter to defend it any further than they already have.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

You seriously believe if a Christian says something like God is good, I feel so blessed today that theyre trying to convert people?

As much as somebody who says "Mario Odyssey is a really good game" is trying to convince other people to try it out.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

impatientperson posted...

adjl posted...

You can, but most of the money-related ills facing the world have nothing to do with religion. They're more about people exploiting other people and/or the planet for money, and you don't need religion to do that.

Sure but a lot of them (the social problems mainly) are also based in either racism or religious prejudice. There are so many laws that are based on stupid/antiquated religious principles.

There are, but as much press as they're getting, they aren't actually the basis for the problems that would qualify as "ruining the planet." Climate change is the biggest one, and that's 100% capitalism's fault.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mooreandrew58 posted...

to be fair thats different than actively trying to convert people. having an opinion isn't the same as trying to make people believe it to. there is a fine line in there somewhere between the two though.

Debatable. People don't usually state opinions just for the sake of stating opinions, especially on matters they feel strongly about (as is typically the case when discussing the underlying framework of morals that guides one's life). If somebody's expressing their assessment of something, it's usually with the intent of convincing other people of their position, or at least sparking discussion where involved parties further defend their opinions. There are varying degrees of such persuasion, of course, but any statement of opinion carries the implication of "I invite you to also try holding this opinion."

mooreandrew58 posted...

I mean cause if that is attempts at converting, then any christian who spews bible versus, openly talks about christianity in a positive manner on the regular is doing the same

They are. It's not the aggressive "you're going to hell if you don't convert" sort of conversion attempt, but it is definitely an invitation for others to share their faith.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Syntheticon posted...

Still creepy-you haven't explained if we're supposed to find them attractive as kids and compare them to what we think of them now, if so, what's wrong with you? That's sick.

Eh, the whole "attractive teen actress is 18 now let's all gush over her because it's finally socially acceptable" thing is pretty different from asking if a 48-year-old is attractive, even if said 48-year-old was most noteworthy for a role that played when they were a kid. There's much less "oh good I'm not a pedophile* anymore" going on.

*Yes, attraction to teenagers is technically ephebophilia, but I'm using "pedophilia" in the colloquial sense of being attracted to somebody too young to be legal and/or socially acceptable because literally nobody uses the word "ephebophilia" except for ephebophiles that don't want to be lumped in with other creepy minor-likers.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Real gamers enjoy playing games and consider them to be a major hobby.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

I can only judge from personal experience but I havent met a single atheist that tried to convert anyone to atheism.

Have you ever met anyone that said religion was dumb, or otherwise openly looked down on it?
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mooreandrew58 posted...

eh i'm of the belief anyone born here is native. when you get down to it, everyone is pretty much a immigrant to everywhere,

That's why it does get hard to draw the line between what cultures are American and what cultures are immigrant, and why it's silly for so many people to be so afraid of refugees bringing their different cultures into America and crushing American culture. For one thing, there is no single "American culture" to be crushed. For another, immigrants have been bringing their cultures and throwing them into America's melting pot for as long as America has existed. It's just that a lot of those cultures have been around for long enough that people forget that.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

What are his policy stances and who is he running against

Anyone who answers the topic question without first answering these questions is the problem with democracy.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

-Komaiko54- posted...

doesn't explain why there isn't a web browser when the system is already built to play videos and can already run the most popular websites

Sure it does. They just haven't developed web browsing software for it yet. A browser would be developed in-house, so you can't pin the blame on an outside company being slow, as you can with other media services, but the basic issue is still the same. I can also understand why they're dragging their feet on a browser, given that it's not that big of a deal (most people have a smartphone they can use for Interwebsing), and the Switch really needed a running start to gain a foothold after the WiiU's failure. I'm not at all surprised Nintendo would prioritize game development over utility software.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

mooreandrew58 posted...

yeah I got into an argument with a friend online once, religion was apart of it. and he spouted off with "we must be living in two different americas" in kind of a snarky way trying to downplay my side of the argument, to which I had to reply "we sort of do, you live on the west coast and I live in the south east. i'm pretty sure there is a difference"

Eeyup. America's not exactly culturally uniform even when you don't count immigrants (though technically every non-native culture in America was an immigrant one at some point, so defining that is hard, but that's beside the point). There are many different Americas, which is weird to realize when using the Internet to pretend everyone's right next to you.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

FolkenRawr posted...

Then again, no atheist has ever told my mother that she, my sisters and I are going to hell for not being Christians(Catholic)

To be fair, that's a pretty meaningless comment to anyone that doesn't already believe in Hell. It's still mean-spirited, but it's kind of like trying to curse a Jewish person by saying "may you never eat bacon again!"
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Jen0125 posted...

Oh the Switch is finally catching up with modern technology?

It's not really a technology thing. The software just hadn't been developed for it to access streaming services yet.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Oh good. Hopefully Netflix, Youtube, and an internet browser follow shortly.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MoreRpgs posted...

They're worst than religious people haha

Eh, it's not really something you can generalize. Some atheists are more obnoxious than some religious people, and vice versa.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MICHALECOLE posted...

That's axiomatically false. If a follower of a religion doesn't follow what that religion preaches, they aren't a follower of the religion. Literally by definition.

Oh, so there are no religious people, cool

Oh, there can be religious people. It's just that a whole lot of them kind of make up their own religion instead of actually following the one they claim to follow.

mooreandrew58 posted...

i've had Christians harass me far more than atheists but I do live in a "bible belt"

It is very much a regional thing. That's one of the reasons the Internet inflates people's sense of atheists' aggression, since atheists aren't the minority online that they are in much of the real world.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

impatientperson posted...

But a lot of that uses religion as an easy way to grab people. Religion is a very powerful tool that you can use to sell an idea.

You can, but most of the money-related ills facing the world have nothing to do with religion. They're more about people exploiting other people and/or the planet for money, and you don't need religion to do that.

Jen0125 posted...

Adjl what religions preach and what their followers do are two totally different things.

That's axiomatically false. If a follower of a religion doesn't follow what that religion preaches, they aren't a follower of the religion. Literally by definition.

shipwreckers posted...

Atheists on the other hand (especially on the internet), tend to reach others with condescension at best and hate at worst, in an effort to make religious people feel like idiots. They don't give a s*** about the outcome of religious people.

Most atheist proselytizing is indeed more about self-righteous condescension, largely from teenagers who just discovered Dawkins and feel super-duper smart, but it is important to recognize that most atheists don't push it on other people, much like most religious people don't push it on other people. It's no more fair to paint all atheists with the same brush than it is to act like all Christians are Mormons, or like all Muslims are terrorists.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DistantMemory posted...

but out there in the meatspace it ain't atheists that are knocking on people's doors or trying to legislate their theological views.

It's pretty much just Mormons and JW's knocking on people's doors, and you definitely do get atheists trying to legislate the atheist equivalent of theological views (deeply-held moral beliefs, namely).

Jen0125 posted...

Because religious people are ruining the planet with their bullshit.

Also not really. Most of the "ruining the planet" going on is a consequence of unchecked greed, which is the opposite of what most religions preach. That's not to say there aren't a whole lot of bad things going on in the name of some religion or another, but in terms of catastrophic global implications, it's those worshiping at the Temple of Mammon that you need to really worry about.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

DistantMemory posted...

Seems like you got that backwards.

Not really. It's not usually presented as "you must convert to the church of Dawkins," so I can understand your confusion, but a good many atheists are quite aggressive about trying to convince religious people they shouldn't be religious.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.