Lurker > nemu

Even if it does go back up, it seems unlikely that it will ever reach as high as it was at its peak. Imagine all the people who were so high on life at that movement who now have less than a third of their wealth because they saw all the articles about how it was going to reach 50k. That's why I would never touch this stuff in a serious manner.

Why do people act like it's always some completely black and white situation where everyone is completely omniscient? There are cases of blatant police abuse and negligence, but an innocent person dying is not always a case of "the police are bad." They need to make split second decisions for the safety of the public, so it's very possible for tragic mistakes to happen. This article is clearly trying to spin it in a certain way, so it's hard to tell from the details given if the cop was in the right or not.

Seem fake, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's real.

Mischief Makers

How do these people exist? It's like they think being fat is the only way they can exist in this world. They put no stock into losing weight. You don't need to be stick thin, but you're too fat once you cannot fit in an airline seat or cannot do thing others can do because of your weight.

Seeing this on news sites, I don't like how some headlines act like he punched him because of what was said. Some even make it sound like he just straight out murdered him. I get headlines have to be succinct, but they're obviously not describing it correctly on purpose.

There is usually much more behind the scenes than just recording. I dont know much about him in particular, but he likely does put in a full work week of hours even if people dont see it. Though Im sure there are the exceptions who get super lucky with low effort content, so he could potentially be one of them.

You'd obviously want to be in the place with the least amount of people. Somewhere in like Wyoming with a super low population would have the best chance of survival.

If it was just the guy yelling at him and he initiated first contact, this would be stupid, but the deceased turned it into a physical altercation and there was no excess force used. Words should never be met with force, but force should certainly be met with reasonable force.

monkmith posted...

nemu posted...

You can also drive your own legally owned car into a bunch of kids. You can look up online and methodically make a bunch of bombs from easily obtainable materials. You can make a bunch of poison cookies and serve them out. You can grab a knife and stab people. There are a multitude of ways to commit mass murder. Guns being the easiest to use is not the fault of the guns. Better gun control is fine if it's reasonable, but acting like guns are the problem fixes nothing.

the problem is the other side insists that guns play no part in murders! like the fucker with the gun could have thrown the bullets at people instead. then you get the alarmist assholes (and the gun lobbies that pay people to fake it) who scream that any restriction on gun ownership is tantamount to banning all guns and arming criminals.

Technically they do not. There is no time in which a gun is the only way for someone to commit a crime. Certainly, someone with several guns will have an easier time killing than a guy with a knife, but a guy with a car in some scenarios might kill more than both combined.

For those against regulations, it depends on the regulations themselves. Sometimes people are going overboard in their proposals, so it's a problem with reactionaries on both sides.

You can also drive your own legally owned car into a bunch of kids. You can look up online and methodically make a bunch of bombs from easily obtainable materials. You can make a bunch of poison cookies and serve them out. You can grab a knife and stab people. There are a multitude of ways to commit mass murder. Guns being the easiest to use is not the fault of the guns. Better gun control is fine if it's reasonable, but acting like guns are the problem fixes nothing.

He wasn't saying he alone was the master race, but both of them. So unless he is blind, he was obviously referencing some kind of shared characteristic. Seeing as people often use things like "PC master race", it's obviously not a phrase 100% connected to nazism. It's not a phrase one should use in normal discourse, but it's not something people should have freaked out about unless he started stuttering while using a bunch of nazi puns.

No, not at all. All the power to those that do, but there is no circumstance with current science that would ever prompt me to be interested. You'd need a brain transplant for me to be fine with it.

If you're basing it on data, it really depends on what kind of homeless people they're helping. It would depend what percentage are temporarily homeless looking to get right back into the game once they get a foothold and how many are "professionally" homeless who have decided that no amount of help will allow them to be anything but useless bums.

It should entirely depend on the context of the usage. If Nintendo is still around in 2050s, they'll likely be making better use of their IPs than some random guy wanting to jump on the name. If by the 2050s Nintendo has been dead for two decades and vultures have been picking at the rights for no reason other than cash grabs, then is should be released to the public. These laws never expected entities to last hundreds of years.

"I know you literally have no sway over living human beings with their own thoughts and opinions, but you really, like, should control their every action and make them stop doing things I don't like." I hate this mentality so much. The idea that someone has fans or supporters of a less than reputable nature says nothing about that person unless they directly support or encourage those views.

It's really one of those things that should be released with maybe either a note at the beginning, or a 5 minute intro discussing the era in which the movie was made and the context of what makes those ideas wrong. It's dumb to fully try to hide the past in cases like this. It can be both an enjoyable movie for some and a learning experience.

It was fine for the Wii because that was the point of it, but it's getting old hat in more recent games. Locking several motions in Odyssey to motion controls was dumb. Having literally no alternative made no sense. More control schemes for more options is great, but forcing them to be used is just dumb.

If it's optional, it's not too bad. The only way a full shift to digital should ever be a thing is if there's some kind of governmental regulation that says this content has to be available to the consumer literally forever. There needs to be some kind of third party service that can allow the servers to download games even if the company dies. Other than the collection aspect of physical, that is the biggest problem with this stuff. Once they stop supporting it, you're left with what you have on the console and that's it. Look at the various Wii games that will be lost to oblivion next year without less than legal means now.

Double. Only way 6 months would be worth it if it was per year. I'd take that in a heartbeat.

They should put up retractable gates along all tracks near stations in Japan.

I hope the whole non-binary, swapping genders, and nonsense genders thing goes away in the next few years.

It depends on why he shot. There was obvious reason to think the person was dangerous due to the false call, so them walking in on this massively confused and "dangerous" person could very well have led to a situation where the "suspect" was not following instructions. In that case, there is nothing wrong with having shot him given the parameters the officer was given. If the guy was complying and somehow still got shot, that would be wrong.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The sex binary is not a catch all, you're the one ignoring that literal fucking geneticists say on the subject. You must know better than them though, with your zero qualifications.

Your only examples are literal deformities, so I'm not too certain on that.

They're not even classified as deformities by the appropriate medical fields that they're relevant to. Glad to know you don't actually care about being accurate.

Arguing semantics doesn't push a debate forward. Whatever you want to call intersex people, they are plagued by a physical disorder that is not directly related to this topic. They are not part an example of an alternate sex. They do not prove any idea that genitals are not indicative of sex. It's like trying to say there is a spectrum of the number of human fingers because we can technically be born with zero to ten or more.

It's not semantics, it's literally the consensus of the relevant medical fields that it's not a deformity.

It's entirely semantics. You're acting as if the definition of that word means anything about anything in this discussion. You know what I mean. I know what I mean. It's literally a deformity per the dictionary definition, but people in the academic field likely use other words as they need to rigidly define things. That doesn't change the argument one iota. Bring up wording when it directly affects the core of the argument, not when it makes a good deflection topic.

You're the one ignoring the scientific definition in favor of applying a dictionary definition. You're the one being pedantic. But tell me, why does it matter that you are able to reiterate that it's a deformity (which medically, it isn't one)? It only serves to add to your "well we can't actually acknowledge intersex people" argument which again, is running contrary to what the relevant medical fields have to say on the matter.

See, you're doing it again. What relevance does that have to the discussion? You need to stop harping on irrelevant wording. We're down three levels on a pointless tangent because of that. You're trying to use it as a tactic to downplay your opponent, but it just makes you look silly.

It doesn't really matter what word is used. The point is that the conditions are indicative of anything related to a sex spectrum. It is something on the level of any other condition where someone is born lacking something, born with an extra something, or born with something that looks nothing like it should look naturally. Sex being a spectrum would be people being born fully functioning with a variety of characteristics completely naturally without any kind of issues in the womb. I feel like whatever science you're looking it is for something very specific, but you're trying to apply it too broadly.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The sex binary is not a catch all, you're the one ignoring that literal fucking geneticists say on the subject. You must know better than them though, with your zero qualifications.

Your only examples are literal deformities, so I'm not too certain on that.

They're not even classified as deformities by the appropriate medical fields that they're relevant to. Glad to know you don't actually care about being accurate.

Arguing semantics doesn't push a debate forward. Whatever you want to call intersex people, they are plagued by a physical disorder that is not directly related to this topic. They are not part an example of an alternate sex. They do not prove any idea that genitals are not indicative of sex. It's like trying to say there is a spectrum of the number of human fingers because we can technically be born with zero to ten or more.

It's not semantics, it's literally the consensus of the relevant medical fields that it's not a deformity.

It's entirely semantics. You're acting as if the definition of that word means anything about anything in this discussion. You know what I mean. I know what I mean. It's literally a deformity per the dictionary definition, but people in the academic field likely use other words as they need to rigidly define things. That doesn't change the argument one iota. Bring up wording when it directly affects the core of the argument, not when it makes a good deflection topic.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The sex binary is not a catch all, you're the one ignoring that literal fucking geneticists say on the subject. You must know better than them though, with your zero qualifications.

Your only examples are literal deformities, so I'm not too certain on that.

They're not even classified as deformities by the appropriate medical fields that they're relevant to. Glad to know you don't actually care about being accurate.

Arguing semantics doesn't push a debate forward. Whatever you want to call intersex people, they are plagued by a physical disorder that is not directly related to this topic. They are not part an example of an alternate sex. They do not prove any idea that genitals are not indicative of sex. It's like trying to say there is a spectrum of the number of human fingers because we can technically be born with zero to ten or more.

gunplagirl posted...

The sex binary is not a catch all, you're the one ignoring that literal fucking geneticists say on the subject. You must know better than them though, with your zero qualifications.

Your only examples are literal deformities, so I'm not too certain on that.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Considering you said it doesn't matter whether it's physical hormonal or mental it's still mental. Which is like, a textbook example of a contradictory statement. And not even a duplicitous one that might actually hold water.

I feel like you're purposely being obtuse for the sake of arguing more than needed. I don't think anything I said in that post is hard to follow. It doesn't matter if it's the shape of the brain, hormonal factors, or simply 100% in their head, the person feels the needs to change their body and lifestyle to match their how they feel. That is perfectly acceptable, and there should be no particular reason to be against that. The problem comes when people want to ignore the physical reality completely, the whole "real man" and "real woman" line of reasoning. That doesn't change what they have or used to have between their legs.

What you just did for the first time was expand and attempt to qualify your statement. What you said before and what you just now explained in depth are totally different.

You're still wrong but this is actually a fleshed out enough statement that I can tell you the specifics you're wrong about. Like "real man/ woman" and tying it to genital configurations at birth, as that ignores intersex people, trans people and people with gonadal disorders.

Why do people always bring up intersex people in trans debates? Intersex people have unfortunate physical disorders, some of which that are extremely sad and some of which comparatively aren't that bad. They are not some kind of "GOTCHA!" It's like saying some of the very horrific babies you see in the news are some kind of example of a new human race. They're just very unfortunate.

They are proof that using some "xy is male xx is female" system is not correct. It's a spectrum and they're just the more extreme examples of people who don't fit within such a simplistic binary system.

Even if we do stick with a binary (male and female) there's still more to it than just genitals and chromosomes. So no, it's not a gotcha so much as a "if you ignore them it's because you aren't actually interested in being scientifically, medically or categorically accurate" and as such comes down to you.

No, it's proof of nothing. It's a rare series of disorders of people who did not develop correctly. It's no different than being born with extra appendages or missing appendages in terms of this debate. It's like you're treating intersex people as if they're a third sex or something by trying to shove them into this line of thinking. Just because there are people who did not develop properly it is not indicative of a spectrum. You would need a much higher population of such people, and they would need to be "normal" (as in their traits being positively being passed down to children and not just being one-offs). It's indicative that sometimes the human reproductive process majorly fucks up.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Considering you said it doesn't matter whether it's physical hormonal or mental it's still mental. Which is like, a textbook example of a contradictory statement. And not even a duplicitous one that might actually hold water.

I feel like you're purposely being obtuse for the sake of arguing more than needed. I don't think anything I said in that post is hard to follow. It doesn't matter if it's the shape of the brain, hormonal factors, or simply 100% in their head, the person feels the needs to change their body and lifestyle to match their how they feel. That is perfectly acceptable, and there should be no particular reason to be against that. The problem comes when people want to ignore the physical reality completely, the whole "real man" and "real woman" line of reasoning. That doesn't change what they have or used to have between their legs.

What you just did for the first time was expand and attempt to qualify your statement. What you said before and what you just now explained in depth are totally different.

You're still wrong but this is actually a fleshed out enough statement that I can tell you the specifics you're wrong about. Like "real man/ woman" and tying it to genital configurations at birth, as that ignores intersex people, trans people and people with gonadal disorders.

Why do people always bring up intersex people in trans debates? Intersex people have unfortunate physical disorders, some of which that are extremely sad and some of which comparatively aren't that bad. They are not some kind of "GOTCHA!" It's like saying some of the very horrific babies you see in the news are some kind of example of a new human race. They're just very unfortunate.

gunplagirl posted...

Considering you said it doesn't matter whether it's physical hormonal or mental it's still mental. Which is like, a textbook example of a contradictory statement. And not even a duplicitous one that might actually hold water.

I feel like you're purposely being obtuse for the sake of arguing more than needed. I don't think anything I said in that post is hard to follow. It doesn't matter if it's the shape of the brain, hormonal factors, or simply 100% in their head, the person feels the needs to change their body and lifestyle to match their how they feel. That is perfectly acceptable, and there should be no particular reason to be against that. The problem comes when people want to ignore the physical reality completely, the whole "real man" and "real woman" line of reasoning. That doesn't change what they have or used to have between their legs.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

The idea that we need to ignore objective reality to protect people's feelings is so dumb. There is a vast difference between respecting someone's inclinations to live as the opposite sex due to something they cannot control and bending over backwards to affirm it even to the point of ignoring how the world actually works.

Good thing being transgender doesn't stem from feelings. It's the feelings that would stem from being transgender.

Maybe bother learning what a word actually is before spouting bullshit like this?

That addresses nothing of what I said at all. The feelings in this context are those of anyone who gets so caught up in this idea that a mental state of mind needs to override the physical reality we live in. That's not even necessarily trans people, but anyone who pushes for it.

So yeah you don't actually know what transgender is if you think it's just a state of mind

It doesn't matter if the root cause is physical, hormonal, or mental, it's still shows up as a mental state of "I'm not A, I'm B." It does not change the physical body they're born into, and it does not make the characteristics of that body go away.

You just spent all that time typing this and you still didn't post anything that's actually correct. Like, how you can be 0% right three posts in a row is mind boggling. Well, maybe it's not your mind that's being boggled.

I'm sure you have a very realistic worldview.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

The idea that we need to ignore objective reality to protect people's feelings is so dumb. There is a vast difference between respecting someone's inclinations to live as the opposite sex due to something they cannot control and bending over backwards to affirm it even to the point of ignoring how the world actually works.

Good thing being transgender doesn't stem from feelings. It's the feelings that would stem from being transgender.

Maybe bother learning what a word actually is before spouting bullshit like this?

That addresses nothing of what I said at all. The feelings in this context are those of anyone who gets so caught up in this idea that a mental state of mind needs to override the physical reality we live in. That's not even necessarily trans people, but anyone who pushes for it.

So yeah you don't actually know what transgender is if you think it's just a state of mind

It doesn't matter if the root cause is physical, hormonal, or mental, it's still shows up as a mental state of "I'm not A, I'm B." It does not change the physical body they're born into, and it does not make the characteristics of that body go away.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

The idea that we need to ignore objective reality to protect people's feelings is so dumb. There is a vast difference between respecting someone's inclinations to live as the opposite sex due to something they cannot control and bending over backwards to affirm it even to the point of ignoring how the world actually works.

Good thing being transgender doesn't stem from feelings. It's the feelings that would stem from being transgender.

Maybe bother learning what a word actually is before spouting bullshit like this?

That addresses nothing of what I said at all. The feelings in this context are those of anyone who gets so caught up in this idea that a mental state of mind needs to override the physical reality we live in. That's not even necessarily trans people, but anyone who pushes for it.

The idea that we need to ignore objective reality to protect people's feelings is so dumb. There is a vast difference between respecting someone's inclinations to live as the opposite sex due to something they cannot control and bending over backwards to affirm it even to the point of ignoring how the world actually works.

No. Once it has a become a committed relationship, it's monogamy or the highway.

I'd take the power. I'm sure I could find some way to easily make more money than that with a few viral videos of using the power.

No, nobody deserves to be punched for their views. This is especially true where being a nazi to some people is not agreeing with progressive talking points on the internet. It's a bad trend with a very possible slippery slope. If someone is out there screaming shit about killing a race of people and gets socked, I won't personally feel bad for them and may hypocritically laugh, but the assailant should face the full extent of the law.

If I'm forced to do it, probably the extreme SJW. They can get away with saying vile shit much more than the vile shit that comes out of regular racists.

Four in the Middle East and two in South America. Guess I'll go with Rosario, Argentina.

Group mentality taken too far, the "girls have cooties" train of thought taken to harmful levels. When basing group identity on something as dumb as race, you need to then use every possible trait you can to demonize and dehumanize the others so your grouping is elevated. It's all so dumb.

Creed was good and the trailers at least seem interesting, so I'm planning on giving it a watch. If it ends up being mediocre, I'll probably skip a third movie.