Lurker > Nemu

As long as it's social consequences of being reviled by the public and not "consequences" in the form some masked punk using violence, yes that is how it has always worked.

I feel like this will probably have a really big start, flounder comparatively for a while after the hype dies down, and then have a decent user base once mods are a thing. I honestly feel like that is their planned business model with how bare bones everything has been shown to be so far.

I feel like people have made the whole incel thing into something it's not, like it's actually a group or movement. It's just a bunch of salty men, which sometimes turns into a cesspool of women haters who bounce around in an echo chamber. This echo chamber stirs up the few people who are incels because they're legit insane, and then we get a few shooters. It's not some kind of cult indoctrinating a bunch of mass killers.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

nemu posted...

Honestly, if they had a single, massive game with all the creatures available, I might go for it. That could be fun. The whole "have 8 different games and hours on end of boring trading busywork" or "spend hours on the online system doing boring trading busywork" is a turnoff.

It's 2 games, and trading to get the other 12 or so version exclusive pokemon.

I don't mean for each generation. I mean the idea of literally catching them all past generation 3. You either need a ton of time going through previous games, or you need to spam the GTS in the generations that is available. That's not particularly a fun sounding experience. Only those truly dedicated to it will bother doing all that. If all of them were available in one generation, that would be a lot more enticing to accomplish. I'd still expect that to be a 200+ hour experience, but it would be more worth it than the current methods.

Honestly, if they had a single, massive game with all the creatures available, I might go for it. That could be fun. The whole "have 8 different games and hours on end of boring trading busywork" or "spend hours on the online system doing boring trading busywork" is a turnoff.

That's a perfectly understandable stance to make. It's laughable that the article says people want them to get with the times on diversity but not in a pandering way. With women's modeling, that's literally the only way it will happen. Body positivity is like a mental disease.

It's a dumbed down remake using GO mechanics for catching and GO connectivity as the main selling point.

It's so weird how uppity people get about stuff like this. Finding someone who has fully matured sexually attractive is in no way weird. It's only weird if someone is acting on that attraction towards someone under the age of consent.

They should take in as many as they can reasonably support. I don't know if we're talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions. There's certainly no good way to take in millions of refugees all at once.

It's not impossible the person in command was a shitty human being, but I don't believe it based on just their words. People in a life or death situation won't really have the best memory of how things happened.

Taharqa_ posted...

nemu posted...

The question is how many of them knew. I'd imagine there are quite a large number of people who vote knowing nothing more than "X party good, Y party bad."

This guy is an unabashed racist and white nationalist. YouTube some of his interviews, the guy is even more overtly racist than Steve King.

It doesn't really matter if nobody actually watches those videos. As someone who doesn't vote, I know literally nothing about any candidate from the recent election in my state. I don't know their names, faces, or policies. I'm sure there are quite a large number of people like me, but they still go out to vote because of the whole "civic duty" mentality. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a percentage of people who knowingly voted for him while knowing everything about him, but this article shouldn't act like it's a nazi problem without some kind of evidence to back it.

The question is how many of them knew. I'd imagine there are quite a large number of people who vote knowing nothing more than "X party good, Y party bad."

One million easy. Getting rid of guns means opening up more dangerous warfare as means of first contact and quicker escalation.

Its not anywhere near as offensive as a racist slur, but it is definitely used by some in a racist context.

Not too surprising. There are so many factors needed to make a good story DLC campaign, and not many companies know how to do it.

That would do nothing to stop the current problems. I'm fine with gun regulations that make sense, but the shooting problem is a mental health issue. Take away guns and we'll just have the same people plowing cars into crowds.

As in look like humans, act like animals, or just that some weird group doesn't want to accept them as humans? I wouldn't want to touch anything that lacks human intelligence. If they're intelligent and not the 100% furry kind, I'd be game regardless of how other people want to classify them.

Horrible living conditions and telemarketers.

It's them trying to push the whole narrative of: "Normal gamers are so toxic. We're so much better. Look at our social peacocking. We're such good people. You should listen to everything we say because we're the moral authority of the world."

No. I can't really think of many contexts where it could be considered racist. I guess it could be if we're talking about a black actor, if the person saying it doesn't believe a non-British black person could do another accent because they're black.

UnfairRepresent posted...

$50 down now says this is bullshit and either:

1. His video did way more than that.

or

2. He has a long controversial history and this is just the final straw.

Youtube is full of videos of people killing others in video games.

Hell this is one of my faves:

Youtube has some really stupid application of rules. You see it quite often when a channel is removed, and then it's back in a day when people bitch on Twitter that the person did nothing wrong. It's mostly a problem with their automated system. No clue on this guy though.

I'd say this is a dumb concession. There's some stuff out there that is clearly offensive, but this feels more like people going out of their way to find something to complain about. Nobody is harmed by its removal, but appealing to outrage culture is a loss for everyone.

It's really nothing that will change the experience for them, but it's a bad precedent to set regardless. If they're a big enough market to change everything, give them their own version and let that be it.

It's like taking a Kirby game and making it so it's impossible to die, like Epic Yarn without the charm of the setting to back it up. Kirby is not hard at all outside of the hard arena modes, so dumbing it down is stupid.

It really sounds like she has given up. It wouldn't hurt to try fixing things, but it could hurt all the more if things become better for a few months and then crash again.

Are you for or against tearing up the couch cushions?

I would say the rise of it most likely has to do with an already existent mental health problem bolstered by hyper focused media attention. Every shooting story focuses on the shooter to such a great extent that it gets silly. For some reason, they feel the need to tell every little detail about their life.

Guns are only a means to an end for these killers. If not guns, it would be cars. If not cars, bombs. If not bombs, knifes. Less guns could potentially mean more people chickening out because it become too hard for them, but we live in a reality of about as many guns as there are people in the country. That reality will not change for hundreds of years even if we ban guns this very minute. People so focused on the gun issue seem to live in a different reality where gun laws could instantly stop these incidents. Too bad the rest of us do not.

Nah, I couldn't care less. All of this is the same back and forth that has been going and will continue going on for likely the rest of the history of the country. Nothing actually changes besides which side is crying in the end.

What about Virtual Boy?

So are they breaking the rules and then getting banned, or are they getting banned for no reason?

On a general principal, yes, but there are obvious examples of exceptions both ways.

I'd choose people I know over strangers pretty much in any scenario.

Nothing wrong with the gun being accessible. The bigger problem is them allowing that while knowing the kid is either psychotic or mentally challenged. I assume this is a case where the kid was either constantly in trouble, or he possessed such a lack of understanding of the world that he shoudn't even have been around a butter knife without supervision.

I'd have to assume I hate this person at minimum because they murdered someone close to me and got away with it I guess. If my son knew about it and still saved them, I guess I would probably refuse to ever speak to him again. If it's literally just the person I hate most currently, I don't really care because I don't really hate anyone at all.

If it's someone they know, it's certainly appropriate to pull them aside to give them a heads up if they think it's needed. If it's just some rando in public, I'd say it's quite unwarranted unless the person is inebriated and might not be in their right mind to tell the difference.

Every Smash has gotten some kind of WTF character, so people shouldn't be surprised about that. People are technically correct that the time allocated for it could have been used for something else, but that implies it was up for discussion.

First and third are decent. Second one is pretty bad.

I really can't understand why they want to deny it. The only reason to deny it should be to make Hitler look less evil, but if you want to make Hitler less evil that means you like Hitler. If you like Hitler, you should like his views, and if you like his views, you should be happy it happened. Aside from that, the mindset is stupid as hell.

Nah, I absolutely fear the concept of nothingness. Trying to imagine not existing is one of the few things that legit terrifies me. I don't want to ever die. I truly wish there was some objective way to believe in a heaven, but that's impossible. I'll have to hope cryogenics are super advanced by the time I'm dying or I'm going to freak out.

Yes, cultural attitudes can greatly affect how the individuals in the culture act. I really don't think ethnicity really affects anything at all beyond maybe extremely minor differences stemming in how different races evolved way back to handle their ways of life thousands of years ago.

I love this trend of needing to degrade and insult people who complain about things. It just shows how out of touch many parts of society are.

Yeah, the whole "don't you guys have phones" bit was the dumbest shit.

Yes, it was quite well done. It has a non-canon ending, so you'd need to read the manga to get the full ending.

Polygamy seems fine so long as it's not in a country that treats women like chattel. I honestly don't think it makes for the healthiest of relationships, but there are some people who can find happiness in that manner. If they're living together as if they're married, it wouldn't change much. It not being legal doesn't stop the horrible sex cults from existing. It would probably need heavier regulation to make sure people aren't abusing the system though.

It was superb back then and still holds up pretty solidly in terms of controls, but everything else doesn't really hold up as well. My nostalgia goggles don't do much for it. If we get a N64 classic, I probably wouldn't feel the need to play it.

If you think about it from the perspective that bullying will never go away 100%, yes it can help kids learn how to deal with problems, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore bullying when it happens. It certainly causes more harm than good and should be dealt with as soon as possible by an adult.

Unless the person is really screwed in the head, it's a fetish for rape roleplay or fantasies in their head of being taken without their consent.

Yeah, I get needing to combine people and condense events, but it sucks when they add in blatant falsehoods for the sake of drama. It turns something "based on a true story" into "something partially inspired but otherwise totally unconnected to a true story."

That's such a stupid law. It would be one thing if the person died and had literally no family, but they should be able to look up to see there were relatives during the application process. For anything like that, he should need to show something like certified letters going out to the owners on a yearly basis stating his intentions and then he gets it if they do not contest it.