Lurker > Nemu

gunplagirl posted...

An, rather than actually sticking to facts you're fear mongering and not interested in the science behind the determinations or requirements for trans athletes to compete.

Gosh, what possible reason could a cis person have to ignore science if it's means they get to call a trans athlete who loses most of the time some sort of cheater /sarcasm

What science? They're going from the starting point of "transpeople are eligible to compete" and then deciding random hormone nonsense as if that negates the natural advantage.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

I get why people get iffy on athletics, but the alternatives are p fucked up for transgenders. Either no sports, don't take hormones & compete with your biological sex, or form a new segregated sports industry.

The major problem is we're reaching a point where there has to be a cut off. There has to be a point where society says "no, unfortunately that cannot happen." With sports, it needs to be you either don't transition and continue to play under your biological sex, or don't play at all. There is no middle ground where things can remain fair unless we want to go by weight classes instead of gender. Casual sports or a league where everyone is signing up knowing that gender identity is the determining factor is no problem.

Also, depending on how far down the rabbit hole we're going to go with "people are the gender they say they are", what is the cutoff for someone being considered transgender? If there is a large money prize, can someone just say "I'm a woman for the next hour" and crush the competition? Who would judge how seriously someone is transitioning? I assume there are probably some regulations in place currently, but you have all the gender fluid nonsense going around that could infect these institutions in the future.

There's literally internationally accepted rules regarding what constraints trans women need to meet to qualify for competition, stop with this slippery slope bull crap when to qualify for races with large amounts of prize money you'd have to qualify and sign up months in advance.

But will those rules be the same in five years? Will people argue that they aren't inclusive enough to the point where they're changed again? That's what made transgender people able to compete. The rules were changed to be more progressive. How progressive will they get? We're already going down the slippery slope with them being able to compete in the first place despite the unfairness. People want to ignore that because of progressiveness.

Blue_Dream87 posted...

I get why people get iffy on athletics, but the alternatives are p fucked up for transgenders. Either no sports, don't take hormones & compete with your biological sex, or form a new segregated sports industry.

The major problem is we're reaching a point where there has to be a cut off. There has to be a point where society says "no, unfortunately that cannot happen." With sports, it needs to be you either don't transition and continue to play under your biological sex, or don't play at all. There is no middle ground where things can remain fair unless we want to go by weight classes instead of gender. Casual sports or a league where everyone is signing up knowing that gender identity is the determining factor is no problem.

Also, depending on how far down the rabbit hole we're going to go with "people are the gender they say they are", what is the cutoff for someone being considered transgender? If there is a large money prize, can someone just say "I'm a woman for the next hour" and crush the competition? Who would judge how seriously someone is transitioning? I assume there are probably some regulations in place currently, but you have all the gender fluid nonsense going around that could infect these institutions in the future.

Something that basically completely dehumanizes an entire race. There's being a racist, then there's being a massive racist to the point where you cannot even hold normal discourse with someone of the hated race.

Generally, if you're acting like the world is against you, it's because you're critically flawed and you don't see it.

Why are people using this as a right vs left thing? Memeing left leaning people doesn't inherently make someone on the right. There's not only two methods of thought. Certainly, there will be plenty of right leaning people using it without being self-aware about it.

How about half now and half later?

Like a projection or a physical body? If she can create a physical body, then it's not really much of a downside unless she's creepy and carries around the jar everywhere.

Complete nonsense. Transgender people should not be able to enter any physical gender segregated competition. Regardless of where you fall on the idea of the relationship of gender and sex, the absolute fact is that they still have the body of their biological sex. It will always have an effect in a competition. It is cheating people out of a win.

That's definitely reached the area of too large.

It's surely a significant chunk. It would certainly make sense to switch to artificial meat if that becomes a viable, eco-friendly solution, but screw not eating meat at all.

What's even the original claim she made that Trump went all insane about? Did she claim minority status to achieve something, or did she just tell a story somewhere?

It's one of the funniest things in quite a while because of how true it rings. It can also be fairly applied to robots on the right as well, so it's multi-purpose.

It's not the only reason, but I'm quite sure it it's one of the biggest. The real problem is the response to it. When a group doesn't like pointless forced pandering, it turns into "that group is full of crybaby 'X-ists' so who cares if they don't buy the product." Then many fans, even some people who might not have even been on the complaining side of things, get reasonably pissed off and stop engaging. Telling their fanbase that they're all "inherently misogynistic" for not liking some badly written female superhero is not a good practice.

Unless her game physics are translated into real physics and make her a bad fighter, no.

Why can these fucks just not fight each other? Why does everyone need to be a confrontational shithead to people they disagree with?

Eh, we're still barely adopting 4k, so it doesn't seem too worth it to buy right into it unless you only buy a TV once every 5-10 years.

Just once in the morning. Only time I bother with more is if I've done something that just makes me feel super gross, but that doesn't happen often just sitting in an office for eight hours.

I think I beat the first one, but I honestly can't remember the full thing. It was "eh." I have no fond memories of it or the characters. It wasn't bad, but it certainly is nowhere near iconic.

We're still in the uncanny valley with a lot of mocap facial technology, and some companies just going for "realism" and spectacularly failing.

Can't you go the whole "trust fund" route so some random old guy representing you can collect it?

I get the idea that they want to prove a real person wins each time, but this idea of "here's a picture of you with your name so the whole world knows" is kind of shit.

AlephZero posted...

DuranOfForcena posted...

put it all towards preorders at Gamestop and then go back in in a few days and cancel them all and get refunded

https://imgur.com/FHnO7QJ

I feel like there is probably an upper limit they would allow at any one time, like when it's getting sketchy. Unless you have like fifteen stores in a close area where you could bounce back and forth, they'd probably catch on and say something.

Guess I would just buy the major necessities for a month, then the rest on games and other non-necessities so it's not going to waste. I'm not living paycheck to paycheck, so I could easily float myself on credit cards for a month or two until I get my savings back.

Completely fair when he started the violence. Self-defense A-OK.

Garioshi posted...

nemu posted...

I guess worse would depend if the animal is suffering or not. If the animal doesn't care and isn't left with any permanent harm, necrophilia is worse. If the animal suffers during the act and/or is permanently left with harm, bestiality is worse.

"you just anally raped me but it's okay lol, i'm totally fine now"

While I in no way condone sex with animals, do you really think some guy sticking it in a horse will do anything to the horse? If the horse does not feel the need to kick the guy away and encounter leaves the horse disease-free, then there is no harm. There are ways to physically restrain and rape an animal, and that is much more horrible than "consensual" sex with an animal.

Again, do not condone it at all in any way regardless of any circumstance.

I guess worse would depend if the animal is suffering or not. If the animal doesn't care and isn't left with any permanent harm, necrophilia is worse. If the animal suffers during the act and/or is permanently left with harm, bestiality is worse.

SageHarpuiaHX posted...

nemu posted...

I refuse to believe the abuse of power narrative unless it is objectively shown that there was some kind of threat to abuse that power. I fully agree that it is a bad move to sleep with an employee/college student/etc for a variety of reasons, but it is fully possible for two such people to get together with zero issues. If the idea that "something negative will happen if I refuse" originates in their head through only their own ideas, there is nothing the "person in power" has done wrong. This whole narrative treats people like children who literally have no idea how to consent to sex.

You can't separate the president from his position. The blatantly obvious perspective that anyone who caught you would take on your affair should be enough of a deterrent to keep your dick in your pants tbh

Certainly, he was a moron for doing it. She was also a moron for accepting. It, as with most affairs, is the act of two people knowingly doing something wrong. There has never been any evidence of abuse other than her stupid statement recently just saying something to the effect of "he should have known better," which is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

Super Paper Mario was an experiment that wasn't meant to take the place of anything. It still kept the zany story aspect that people liked about the series. SS began the trend of dumbing down world building, character building, and gameplay. Sticker Star was looking to be fairly standard from the initial screenshots, but then it was gutted.

I refuse to believe the abuse of power narrative unless it is objectively shown that there was some kind of threat to abuse that power. I fully agree that it is a bad move to sleep with an employee/college student/etc for a variety of reasons, but it is fully possible for two such people to get together with zero issues. If the idea that "something negative will happen if I refuse" originates in their head through only their own ideas, there is nothing the "person in power" has done wrong. This whole narrative treats people like children who literally have no idea how to consent to sex.

There is no downside to this at all.

Doesn't really seem that bad. Everyone seems used to it being an absolute clusterfuck, so it's just clockwork.

Retro games were much more limited in scope, so they needed to be full of more trial and error gameplay to get the most out of them. Once they're mastered, there are very few that would take more than a few hours.

It's also very easy for it to fail if it's a new business, so you'll need to put in more than what would be considered a fair share of hours unless you get supremely lucky. Also, depending on what kind of field, you run the risk of scumbag employees.

Yeah, it was pretty good. It would have benefited from the dedicating much more of the movie to the back and forth antics of Venom and Brock. Going full R-rated would have helped too. I don't want it to go full Deadpool, but definitely some more Deadpool-influence could have made it much better.

We need an Ocean's Eleven style movie where the goal is to put googly eyes on Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty, Christ the Redeemer, and one of the giant Buddha statues.

Perfectly acceptable vandalism so long as it doesn't harm the statue.

If they're on the rarer side, sell them now. If more common, probably keep them for another ten years, then sell them.

Never pay by cash at all really. I just do 20% every time.

What a nice change of pace for an article not to mention race. The reader is allowed to make their own judgement on it. It was probably due to the woman being a racist, but there's no objective fact to actually claim that. At the core of it, she is a horrible busybody and he's just a guy being put through shit because of her bullshit.

Doubt it. That's a lot of fucking surgery and artificial parts needed. Probably need 100+ years of scientific development before that's thing.

I'd say "what's next Pepe memes", but I'd honestly believe they had already done it looking at that.

Hollow Knight is great. Celeste is really fun. Haven't played the others.

Whether it's a good thing or not really depends on if the "far right" is actually leaning towards real nazism or not. It's so ill-defined in so many circles. Is being against mass immigration considered "far right?" Is wanting people who clearly don't want to assimilate into the culture to leave "far right?"

If they want to hurt or kill people, then completely fair to call them out on their shit.

Yeah, looks pretty meh. I just hope it's a side series and not trying to supplement the main game series. Leave base building and multiplayer there and get back into the core stuff in Fallout 5.

averagejoel posted...

nemu posted...

averagejoel posted...

nemu posted...

I refuse to say words do harm because then you fall down this slippery slope of "how much harm before someone needs to take action?" That's when you start getting all these people saying "these words are killing transgenders and illegal immigrants." That's how people start thinking others need to be punched because "their words are tantamount to violence." I get the basics of what you're saying, but it's the gathering of ideologies in an echo chamber that's the problem rather than the words themselves.

keep in mind that you're talking about neo nazis here.

For white supremacists and nazis, the best thing is to let them speak and let others reply to them. Even if you cannot change the minds of those who hold those views, you can show the rest of the sane people how moronic they sound. Their groupings only become harmful when they're taken seriously, publicized in the media as some kind of actual threat to the world. If they're made out to be the butt of every joke, debated and verbally defeated at every turn, they'll return to just being a fringe cult without much traction.

this is demonstrably false. debating them does not work.

Public active debate and condemnation is the only way for abhorrent views to be quelled (other than a violent coup if it has reached government level). Take people like the WBC and extremist Christians. They are a gigantic joke for the most part in the eyes of the people. They obviously have some actual presence here and there, but you don't have groups of people dressed in black trying to start shit with them on a daily basis.

averagejoel posted...

nemu posted...

I refuse to say words do harm because then you fall down this slippery slope of "how much harm before someone needs to take action?" That's when you start getting all these people saying "these words are killing transgenders and illegal immigrants." That's how people start thinking others need to be punched because "their words are tantamount to violence." I get the basics of what you're saying, but it's the gathering of ideologies in an echo chamber that's the problem rather than the words themselves.

keep in mind that you're talking about neo nazis here.

For white supremacists and nazis, the best thing is to let them speak and let others reply to them. Even if you cannot change the minds of those who hold those views, you can show the rest of the sane people how moronic they sound. Their groupings only become harmful when they're taken seriously, publicized in the media as some kind of actual threat to the world. If they're made out to be the butt of every joke, debated and verbally defeated at every turn, they'll return to just being a fringe cult without much traction.

hockeybub89 posted...

nemu posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

nemu posted...

Anyone who attacks anyone for political beliefs is human trash. Left, right, white nationalists, antifa, etc, doesn't matter, they're garbage. Words are words. They by themselves do no harm.

To be honest, words don't exist in a vacuum. They are used with some sort of intent. Combinations of sounds don't just fall out of our mouths by themselves. I'm not saying you should hit people for disagreeing with you, but this "words are harmless" notion is horseshit. Words can fuck shit up a lot worse than a sucker punch.

Only if the words are about directing immediate physical harm towards someone. Phrases like "kill all the "racial expletive of choice" are morally reprehensible, but not innately harmful if they are not being used to actively urge people to commit real harm at like say a rally. Otherwise, words can be debated, refuted, denied, or ignored. They cannot by themselves do anything.

Again, words don't exist by themselves. If enough people say the same words, those words become acceptable. If the right people say the words, the words become backed with law. I'm defining harm as more than an immediate call for physical violence.

"Don't hit people who don't hit you" is a better argument against violence than "words don't do anything". Words do everything.

I refuse to say words do harm because then you fall down this slippery slope of "how much harm before someone needs to take action?" That's when you start getting all these people saying "these words are killing transgenders and illegal immigrants." That's how people start thinking others need to be punched because "their words are tantamount to violence." I get the basics of what you're saying, but it's the gathering of ideologies in an echo chamber that's the problem rather than the words themselves.

hockeybub89 posted...

nemu posted...

Anyone who attacks anyone for political beliefs is human trash. Left, right, white nationalists, antifa, etc, doesn't matter, they're garbage. Words are words. They by themselves do no harm.

To be honest, words don't exist in a vacuum. They are used with some sort of intent. Combinations of sounds don't just fall out of our mouths by themselves. I'm not saying you should hit people for disagreeing with you, but this "words are harmless" notion is horseshit. Words can fuck shit up a lot worse than a sucker punch.

Only if the words are about directing immediate physical harm towards someone. Phrases like "kill all the "racial expletive of choice" are morally reprehensible, but not innately harmful if they are not being used to actively urge people to commit real harm at like say a rally. Otherwise, words can be debated, refuted, denied, or ignored. They cannot by themselves do anything.

Anyone who attacks anyone for political beliefs is human trash. Left, right, white nationalists, antifa, etc, doesn't matter, they're garbage. Words are words. They by themselves do no harm.